| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | AW: OID wraparound: summary and proposal |
| Date: | 2001-08-02 07:28:18 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA6879633683BF@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Strangely enough, I've seen no objection to optional OIDs
> other than mine. Probably it was my mistake to have formulated
> a plan on the flimsy assumption.
I for one am more concerned about adding additional per
tuple overhead (moving from 32 -> 64bit) than loosing OID's
on some large tables. Imho optional OID's is the best way to combine
both worlds. OID's only where you absolutely need them, and thus
a good chance that wraparound does not happen during the lifetime of
one application. (And all this by reducing overhead, and not adding
overhead :-)
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-02 10:15:26 | Re: Revised Patch to allow multiple table locks in "Unison" |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-02 04:24:37 | Re: [PATCHES] Allow IDENT authentication on local connections (Linux only) |