| From: | Bruno Wolff III <bruno(at)wolff(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)fireserve(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Using oids |
| Date: | 2003-09-03 16:26:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20030903162652.GA23186@wolff.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 08:46:42 -0700,
Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)fireserve(dot)net> wrote:
> Why is that, anyway, and why should it be?
Because it reduces contention by giving each backend its own pool
of sequence values. But until you call nextval a backend won't
have any values reserved.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Johnson | 2003-09-03 16:36:38 | Re: What is the good equivalent for ENUM ? |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2003-09-03 16:24:35 | Re: Using oids |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Darko Prenosil | 2003-09-03 16:48:37 | Re: Using oids |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2003-09-03 16:24:35 | Re: Using oids |