Re: Re: postgres TODO
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Cc: "Alessio Bragadini" <alessio@albourne.com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2000-07-12T03:05:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > I've forgotten to propose that INSERT returns TID together > with OID before 7.0. This has been in my mind since > I planned to implement Tid scan. Different from OID > ,TID has its specific (fast) access method now. Couple of thoughts here --- * OID is (nominally) unique across tables. TID is not. This is a serious point in the presence of inheritance. I'd like to see the return be table OID plus TID if we are going to rely on TID. * TID identification of a row does not survive VACUUM, does it? So you'd have to assume a vacuum didn't happen in between. Seems a little risky. Vadim's overwriting smgr would make this issue a lot worse. Might be OK in certain application contexts, but I wouldn't want to encourage people to use it without thinking. * I don't see any way to add TID (or table OID) to the default return data without changing the fe/be protocol and breaking a lot of existing client code. Philip's INSERT ... RETURNING idea could support returning TID and table OID as a special case, and it has the saving grace that it won't affect apps that don't use it... regards, tom lane