| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
| Date: | 2000-06-16 16:52:27 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0006161351290.722-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Please add my opinion for naming rule.
>
> > relname/unique_id but need some work new pg_class column,
> > no relname change. for unique-id generation filename not relname
>
> Why is a unique ID better than --- or even different from ---
> using the relation's OID? It seems pointless to me...
just to open up a whole new bucket of worms here, but ... if we do use OID
(which up until this thought I endorse 100%) ... do we not run a risk if
we run out of OIDs? As far as I know, those are still a finite resource,
no?
or, do we just assume that by the time that comes, everyone will be pretty
much using 64bit machines? :)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-16 16:54:00 | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-16 16:51:57 | Re: create user and transactions |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-06-16 16:54:00 | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-06-16 16:50:37 | Re: Big 7.1 open items |