Re: AW: OID wraparound: summary and proposal

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Hmm there seems to be an assumption that people could
> > know whether they need OID or not for each table.
>
> A good point, and one reason not to make no-OIDs the default. I'm
> envisioning that people will turn off OIDs only for tables that they
> know will be very large and that they know they don't need OIDs for.
>

AFAIK few people have voted *OIDs by default* in the
first place. It seems to mean that *default* would
naturally(essentially) be changed to *WITH NO OIDS*.
The followings are the result of vote which I remember
well.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

"Mikheev, Vadim" wrote:
>
> > OK, we need to vote on whether Oid's are optional,
> > and whether we can have them not created by default.
>
> Optional OIDs: YES
> No OIDs by default: YES

Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> [trimmed cc:list]
> On Wednesday 18 July 2001 17:09, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > OK, we need to vote on whether Oid's are optional, and whether we can
> > have them not created by default.
>
> [All the below IMHO]
>
> OID's should be optional.
>
> System tables that absolutely have to have OIDs may keep them.
>
> No new OID usage, period. Use some other unique primary key.
>
> Default user tables to no OIDs.