| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend) |
| Date: | 2001-07-18 21:06:15 |
| Message-ID: | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E320166D7@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> If you want to make oids optional on user tables,
> we can vote on that.
Let's vote. I'm proposing optional oids for 2-3 years,
so you know how I'll vote -:)
> However, OID's keep our system tables together.
How?! If we want to find function with oid X we query
pg_proc, if we want to find table with oid Y we query
pg_class - we always use oids in context of "class"
to what an object belongs. This means that two tuples
from different system tables could have same oid values
and everything would work perfectly.
There is no magic around OIDs.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-07-18 21:06:46 | Re: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend) |
| Previous Message | Michael Widenius | 2001-07-18 21:04:26 | Re: MySQL Gemini code |