RE: OID wraparound: summary and proposal

I'm not sure this is related to the OID discussion, however I have seen
designs where a unique id is required for all the objects in the
database.

This (IMO) this implies an int8 (or larger) sequence number.

It would be nice if we could have different size sequences. Just thought
I'd throw that in.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
Sent: August 3, 2001 9:22 AM
To: Tom Lane
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] OID wraparound: summary and proposal

> ncm(at)zembu(dot)com (Nathan Myers) writes:
> > At the same time that we announce support for optional OIDs, we
> > should announce that, in future releases, OIDs will only be
> > guaranteed unique (modulo wraparounds) within a single table.
>
> Seems reasonable --- that will give people notice that we're thinking
> about separate-OID-generator-per-table ideas.
>
> Right now we don't really document any of these considerations, but I
> plan to write something as part of the work I'm about to do.

But why do that if we have sequences?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania
19026

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster