| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: with vs without oids in pg_catalog.* | 
| Date: | 2004-04-01 13:47:16 | 
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.58.0404011446090.29898@elvis | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Dear Tom,
> > So my question still is: Given the fact that I have some use for these
> > oids, would it make sense to submit a patch to add them?
>
> It will be rejected.
That's a simple a direct answer as I like them.
So I won't bother to submit a patch;-)
BTW, maybe you could reject some of the patches I submitted earlier,
rather than to simply ignore them?
> We removed pg_attribute OIDs some time ago, and we aren't going to put
> them back without a much better reason than this.  If you need a
> specific counterargument, here is one: pg_attribute is normally much the
> largest catalog.  If we required its rows to have unique OIDs, the
> probability of collisions after OID-counter wraparound would be much
> greater than it is in other catalogs.
Mmh. Maybe you could have considered sequences.
-- 
Fabien Coelho - coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-04-01 13:52:03 | Re: with vs without oids in pg_catalog.* | 
| Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2004-04-01 10:22:58 | Re: Large DB |