| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lonni J Friedman <netllama(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: disabling OIDs? |
| Date: | 2004-12-13 04:52:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1102913565.23208.50.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 20:25 -0800, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> OK, thanks. So is there any real benefit in doing this in a generic
> (non-dspam) sense, or is it just a hack that wouldn't be noticable?
> Any risks or potential problems down the line?
It saves 4 bytes per row; depending on alignment and padding
considerations, that may or may not equate to disk space savings. Other
than the inability to use OIDs on the table, there is no real risks to
doing this -- I'm planning to advocate making WITHOUT OIDS the default
in PostgreSQL 8.1+. You can get this behavior in 8.0 by setting the
default_with_oids config variable to "false".
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guy Rouillier | 2004-12-13 05:26:44 | Re: problem in connecting to postgreserver |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-12-13 04:39:43 | Re: Temporary tables and disk activity |