Re: [QUESTIONS] Arrays (inserting and removing)
Ralf Mattes <mattes@mhs.uni-freiburg.de>
From: Ralf Mattes <mattes@mhs.uni-freiburg.de>
To: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>
Cc: "Vadim B. Mikheev" <vadim@sable.krasnoyarsk.su>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>, Gyepi Sam <gsam@praxis-sw.com>, Michael J Schout <mschout@mail.gkg-com.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-questions@postgreSQL.org
Date: 1998-01-15T22:58:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Karl Denninger wrote: > > > The last we discussed in pgsql-hackers was that OIDs would not be > > > dropped... > > > > ..but would be optional. > > Vadim Phew, safed some code... :-) > OIDs are a bastardization of the relational model. If you have to keep > them, then do so, but their use should be SEVERELY discouraged. Yes, shure, but Postgres (and many com. systems) isn't afull im- plementation of the relational model. And sometimes i's very handy to be able ti identify a specific record/tuple (i use them in front end user interfaces. The interface stores the oid of the currently displayed record--if the user changes/deletes the record it's easy to do an update/delete. Even so it's possible to store the unique index key this is much more elaborate to implement and is a pain when the table definitions aren't hardcoded in the frontend application). I don't see why oids per se violate the relational model (and of course when some of my dbs started there was nothing like 'unique key' in postgres and in some theunique key stretches over several fields...( Ralf =========================================================================== Ralf Mattes Joh.-Seb.- Bach Str. 13 D-79104 Freiburg i. Br. email: Mattes@MHS.uni-freiburg.de / Ralf@slon.freinet.de ===========================================================================