On March 29, 2007 03:24 pm, Christopher Browne wrote:
> Bill Moran <wmoran at collaborativefusion.com> writes:
> > I'm kind up in the air about this.  I would like to put together a patch
> > that will support longer node IDs, but 10^15 seems arbitrary, and
> > anything I'd change it to would be arbitrary as well.  The painful thing
> > is that in a database where all tables have primary keys, it's not needed
> > anyway.
> >
> > I expect that not a lot of people are having trouble with this, or there
> > would be more discussion about it up till now, but I'm curious if
> > anyone has ideas to contribute.
>
> I hadn't noticed this particular issue before this thread pointed it
> out.
>
> My reaction is that I *really* dislike TABLE ADD KEY.  It has several
> ways (aside from this way that I was unaware of) that it can "bite"
> you, and is a sign of poor schema design.
>
> To that end, one of my tasks of this afternoon was, in fact, setting
> up a request in our ticketing system to "seek out and destroy" the
> (happily fairly few) instances where we have such usage.
>
> Removing TABLE ADD KEY from 1.2 would be unreasonable, but it seems to
> me that we might consider deprecating or it (or worse) in 1.3.

In 1.3 I'd vote that we remove the ability to table add key (but support it as 
already present during an upgrade)  but whine loudly during the upgrade 
functions() saying please fix this.  and whine to the slon logs every vacuum 
cycle of the same thing.. 

Then we can drop it all together in a later 1.3, or 1.4


-- 
Darcy Buskermolen
Command Prompt, Inc.
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/