Re: Solving the OID-collision problem

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Solving the OID-collision problem
Date: 2005-08-10 21:39:49
Message-ID: 14453.1123709989@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I agree with everything you just said.

As AndrewSN already pointed out, the argument is all wet because it
ignores the use of OIDs for toasted values ... not to mention large
objects. Yeah, it would take a while to wrap the counter, but it's
hardly out of the question for it to happen.

As it happens, I've spent today working on a patch, and I'm about to
post it for comment.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-08-10 22:55:24 Re: Planner doesn't look at LIMIT?
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2005-08-10 21:31:38 Re: Solving the OID-collision problem