| From: | "Roderick A(dot) Anderson" <raanders(at)tincan(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Notes about int8 sequences |
| Date: | 2001-08-06 22:34:21 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.10.10108061529050.16782-100000@tincan.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm. That's a possibility. There's some potential for trouble if an
> application is expecting an int4 result from "SELECT nextval()" and
> gets int8 instead, but if we think we could live with that...
I assume there will be the same limitations as you mentioned in your
original message. Ie. some systems don't have an 8-byte-int C datatype
so would still have the 2^31 limit.
> Actually, if we thought we could live with that, my inclination would be
> to blow off int4-based sequences altogether, and just redefine SEQUENCE
> objects as operating on INT8. Interesting thought, eh?
More than interesting ... excellant. Bigger is better, right?
Cheers,
Rod
--
Remove the word 'try' from your vocabulary ...
Don't try. Do it or don't do it ...
Steers try!
Don Aslett
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-06 23:02:19 | Re: Re: Notes about int8 sequences |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-06 22:21:48 | Re: Possible solution for LIKE optimization |