Re: 4 billion record limit?

From: Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>
To: brad <brad(at)kieser(dot)net>
Cc: Mathieu Arnold <arn_mat(at)club-internet(dot)fr>, Postgres Users <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 4 billion record limit?
Date: 2000-07-28 00:03:36
Message-ID: 3980CDD8.48DF0C1D@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-novice

brad wrote:
>
> Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>
> > Chris Bitmead wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Any complex scheme to solve this seems like a waste of time. In a couple
> > > of years when you are likely to be running out, you'll probably be
> > > upgrading your computer to a 64bit one with a newer version of postgres,
> > > and then the problem will disappear.
> >
> > that's the kind of thing people said about y2k, isn't it ?
> I don't want to start a war but I must agree here... I recoil when the
> argument is put forward for a "you will never use that up" approach.
> The best that I can offer is: Oh yeah? Seen some of the Beowulf clusters
> around recently?

Regardless, the solution is not to make a complex oid reuse scheme. The
solution is 64bit oids which is easily solved on a 64bit computer, but
requires a bit of effort to make it work on 32bit machines. If you want
to make the effort - go for it!

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John McKown 2000-07-28 00:30:34 Problems with insert (fwd)
Previous Message Chris Jones 2000-07-27 23:59:00 Re: 4 billion record limit?

Browse pgsql-novice by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John McKown 2000-07-28 00:17:32 Re: timestamp and null value
Previous Message Chris Jones 2000-07-27 23:59:00 Re: 4 billion record limit?