RE: Re: 4 billion record limit?

From: "Andrew Snow" <als(at)fl(dot)net(dot)au>
To: "Pgsql-General(at)Postgresql(dot) Org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Re: 4 billion record limit?
Date: 2000-07-29 04:25:59
Message-ID: NHEALMDKDACEIPBNOOOCGEPHCIAA.als@fl.net.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-novice


> > That's an excellent point, especially considering that *sequences* use
> > an integer to hold their max_value, which is by default 2,147,483,647.
> > You cannot go larger than that, either. I guess it's constrained to be
> > positive. So OIDs give you more potential unique values than sequences,
> > far as I can tell.

What about postgres' int8 type which holds up to +/- 9 billion billion or
something.

- Andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-07-29 04:39:17 Hmm ... shouldn't path_distance be MIN distance not MAX distance?
Previous Message Philip Warner 2000-07-29 04:14:11 Re: pg_dump & performance degradation

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joonas Makkonen 2000-07-29 07:18:47 LZTEXT and ODBC drivers
Previous Message cpliu 2000-07-29 00:49:53 pg_class file