From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SEV <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Getting OID in psql of recent insert |
Date: | 1999-11-22 19:10:49 |
Message-ID: | 25215.943297849@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SEV <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> Yes, I use 'em the same way. I think an OID is kind of like a pointer
>> in a C program: good for fast, unique access to an object within the
>> context of the execution of a particular application (and maybe not
>> even that long). You don't write pointers into files to be used again
>> by other programs, though, and in the same way an OID isn't a good
>> candidate for a long-lasting reference from one table to another.
> I thought this special case is where the new xid access method would come
> in.
Good point, but (AFAIK) you could only use it for tables that you were
sure no other client was updating in parallel. Otherwise you might be
updating a just-obsoleted tuple. Or is there a solution for that?
> Is someone still working on the xid access ?
I think we have the ability to refer to CTID in WHERE now, but not yet an
access method that actually makes it fast...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-11-22 19:15:39 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: postgres RPM build on Suse linux 6.2 |
Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 1999-11-22 18:37:39 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: postgres RPM build on Suse linux 6.2 |