Re: Re: AW: Re: OID wraparound: summary and proposal

mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:

> Somehow I guess I created a misunderstanding. I don't really care about
> ROWID. I care that OID is a 32 bit number. The notion that each table could
> have its own "OID" similar to a ROWID could be an intermediate solution. I
> have flip-flopped a couple times about whether or not the OID being able to
> be eliminated from some tables is a good idea. Some code depends on the
> OID.

See below...

> The way I see it there are 4 options for the OID:

> (2) Allow the ability to have tables without OIDs. This is a source of
> debate.

If we do this, and default OIDs to "on", honestly, where's the
problem? If the DBA does nothing, things work as before (with
potential OID wraparound issues). If you want to avoid/minimize the
issues, turn off OIDs on your large tables, and write/fix your code to
cope.

> (3) Allow tables to have their own notion of an OID. This is harder to do,
> and also a source of debate.
> (4) Make OIDs 64 or 128 bit. (there are platform issues.)

(5) [this was suggested earlier] Create separate spaces for "system"
and "user" OIDs. This requires a similar mechanism to (3), but may be
somewhat easier.

-Doug
--
Free Dmitry Sklyarov!
http://www.freesklyarov.org/

We will return to our regularly scheduled signature shortly.