Re: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend)

From: "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)barchord(dot)com>
To: "Lamar Owen" <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend)
Date: 2001-07-18 20:46:30
Message-ID: 023c01c10fca$b9f29da0$2205010a@jester
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

If OIDs are dropped a mechanism for retrieving the primary key of the
last insert would be greatly appreciated. Heck, it would be useful
now (rather than returning OID).

I much prefer retrieving the sequence number after the insert than
before insert where the insert uses it. Especially when trigger
muckary is involved.

--
Rod Taylor

Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT. You feel sleepy. Notice
how restful it is to watch the cursor blink. Close your eyes. The
opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt
otherwise.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Lamar Owen" <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>; "PostgreSQL-development"
<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: OID wraparound (was Re: [HACKERS] pg_depend)

> Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> > On Wednesday 18 July 2001 16:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It remains to be debated exactly how users should control the
choice for
> >> user tables, and which choice ought to be the default. I don't
have a
> >> strong opinion about that either way, and am prepared to hear
> >> suggestions.
>
> > SET OIDGEN boolean for database-wide default policy.
> > CREATE TABLE WITH OIDS for individual tables? CREATE TABLE
WITHOUT OIDS?
>
> Something along that line, probably.
>
> > ?? Is this sort of thing addressed by any SQL standard (Thomas?)?
>
> OIDs aren't standard, so the standards are hardly likely to help us
> decide how they should work.
>
> I think the really critical choice here is how much backwards
> compatibility we want to keep. The most backwards-compatible way,
> obviously, is OIDs on by default and things work exactly as they
> do now. But if we were willing to bend things a little then some
> interesting possibilities open up. One thing I've been wondering
> about is whether an explicit WITH OIDS spec ought to cause automatic
> creation of a unique index on OID for that table. ISTM that any
> application that wants OIDs at all would want such an index...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to
majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Widenius 2001-07-18 21:04:26 Re: MySQL Gemini code
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-07-18 20:30:04 Re: psql -l