Oids vs Serial fields (was Re: [GENERAL] searching oid's)

From: Rick Delaney <rick(at)consumercontact(dot)com>
To: Adriaan Joubert <a(dot)joubert(at)albourne(dot)com>
Cc: admin <admin(at)wtbwts(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Oids vs Serial fields (was Re: [GENERAL] searching oid's)
Date: 2000-01-14 16:10:05
Message-ID: 387F4A5D.6A50CECE@consumercontact.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Adriaan Joubert wrote:
>
> Yes oids get dumped with the -o flag. That is why I said automatically. Fact
> remains that you cannot manipulate oids. Should you ever want to copy a table into
> an exisiting system you would have to do a new initdb to make sure that the oids
> in your table are not in use. And if anything ever gets corrupted it is much
> harder to recover and fix it, as you have no control over the oid values that the
> system assigns. I would definitely recommend a separate serial value, and I
> believe this is also what is recommended in the postgres docs.

You make some good points, but where is this recommended in the docs? I'd like
to see more of "serial vs oid" if there is something.

Bruce's book doesn't recommend one over the other, though it does mention some
oid limitations. It doesn't mention that the sequence for a serial value isn't
dropped when its table is, btw.

I'd be interested in what others have to say on this topic.

--Rick

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Patrick Welche 2000-01-14 16:19:17 Date format
Previous Message D. Duccini 2000-01-14 15:54:07 Re: [NOVICE] Re: [INTERFACES] psql ERROR : Character Types Tuple is too big: size xxxxx