From: | Bradley Kieser <brad(at)kieser(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Paul Caskey <paul(at)nmxs(dot)com>, Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>, Postgres Users <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 4 billion record limit? |
Date: | 2000-07-27 10:02:04 |
Message-ID: | E13HkUO-0001IM-00@kieser.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-novice |
Quoting Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Paul Caskey <paul(at)nmxs(dot)com> writes:
> >> No doubt about it, you're likely to get a few "duplicate key" errors and
> >> stuff like that. I'm just observing that it's not likely to be a
> >> complete catastrophe, especially not if you don't rely on OIDs to be
> >> unique in your user tables.
>
> > I don't rely on OID uniqueness, but I assumed Postgres does!
>
> Only in the system tables, and not even in all of them. From the
> system's point of view, there's no real need to assign OIDs to
> user table rows at all --- so another possible answer is not to
> do that, unless the user requests it.
>
This changes things a lot. If the rows don't have to have OIDs associated with them
then the 4bn limit is not a transactional limit... in which case there shouldn't be a problem.
> regards, tom lane
>
Bradley Kieser
Director
Kieser.net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bradley Kieser | 2000-07-27 10:05:36 | Re: 4 billion record limit? |
Previous Message | Bradley Kieser | 2000-07-27 09:50:50 | RE: 4 billion record limit? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nicolas Kizilian | 2000-07-27 10:04:36 | timestamp and null value |
Previous Message | julian cowans | 2000-07-27 09:53:41 | Triggers - temporal |