| From: | nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org (Neil Conway) |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Joel Rees <joel(at)alpsgiken(dot)gr(dot)jp>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: OIDs (Or: another RTFM question?) |
| Date: | 2002-07-17 14:49:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20020717144958.GB4067@klamath.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 01:59:53AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> We do already support platforms where Datum is 64 bits because pointers
> are 64 bits (eg, Alpha); on such hardware I think 64-bit OIDs would
> have near-zero added execution cost. But I'm troubled by the notion of
> having OID be 32 bits on some platforms and 64 on others. We have more
> than enough platform-dependency issues already...
I believe Peter already tried this, and concluded it wasn't worth
the trouble & performance hit:
http://www.ca.postgresql.org/~petere/oid8.html
Cheers,
Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilconway(at)rogers(dot)com>
PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Manfred Koizar | 2002-07-17 15:14:42 | Re: table size growing out of control |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-07-17 14:40:54 | Re: table size growing out of control |