| From: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jules Alberts <jules(dot)alberts(at)arbodienst-limburg(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | Postgres Admin List <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: OID |
| Date: | 2002-08-19 14:51:20 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.44.0208192349320.432-100000@angelic.cynic.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Jules Alberts wrote:
> Is there any consensus aboit avoiding OIDs? I'm running a small test
> system right now using OIDs as a means to refer to BLOBs. Should I
> expect any trouble using OIDs in our future production system?
I don't know if there's a consensus, but I certainly avoid using OIDs
completely in my own tables. They're can wrap, for a start, so in a
really busy, large database you might end up getting one that you
already have. Also, I don't like "hidden" fields; if I'm going to refer
to soemething, I like it to be nice and obvious what's being referred
to. And of course they're not portable.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-19 15:04:01 | Re: Fw: OID |
| Previous Message | calvin | 2002-08-19 09:02:56 | Re: J2EE with PostgreSQL |