Re: pg_depend

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_depend
Date: 2001-07-18 17:34:32
Message-ID: 6224.995477672@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I don't see any value in dropping oid from pg_attribute.

Conservation of OIDs. Assigning an OID to every row of pg_attribute
chews up lots of OIDs, for a table that should never be referenced by
OID --- its primary key is (table OID, attribute number).

Right now this isn't really significant, but if/when we have an option
to suppress OID generation for user tables, I have every intention of
applying it to a bunch of the system tables as well. pg_attribute is
a prime candidate.

("When" probably means "next month", btw. This is on my 7.2 list...)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-07-18 17:41:02 Re: pg_depend
Previous Message Steve Howe 2001-07-18 17:30:56 Re: PQexec() 8191 bytes limit and text fields