| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joel Rees <joel(at)alpsgiken(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: OIDs (Or: another RTFM question?) |
| Date: | 2002-07-17 03:18:17 |
| Message-ID: | 200207170318.g6H3IHH18786@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Joel Rees wrote:
> Tom Lane explained:
>
> > Basically what WITHOUT OIDS does for you is to reduce consumption of
> > OIDs, thereby postponing wraparound of the 32-bit OID counter. While
> > the system itself isn't fazed by such a wraparound, user programs that
> > look at OIDs might be.
>
> How much of a pain would it be to make that a 64-bit counter? Would that
> create conflicts with the SQL standard?
>
> (No, I don't contribute code, so if that's a really stupid idea, just tell
> me so.)
Not hard, but another 4 bytes per row and some small performance
penalty. Also, not all system support 64-bit ints.
--
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-07-17 03:22:57 | Re: OIDs (Or: another RTFM question?) |
| Previous Message | Lee Harr | 2002-07-17 02:31:27 | Re: COPY seems to work, but no data in the table |