From: | "neil d(dot) quiogue" <neil(at)iphil(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-questions(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] Arrays (inserting and removing) |
Date: | 1998-01-16 01:04:10 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.3.95.980116085959.7788C-100000@tirad.herrera.iphil.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> Major problem with OID: OIDs are sequenced across the database,
> not the table. ie. tableA inserts with OID #1, tableB inserts with OID
> #2, tableA inserts next record with OID #3, tableC then gets #4, etc...
in my oo world (i.e., systems i develop), i use oid's to determine the
type of object and due to the limitation of postgresql's oids, i use a
separate field for the system's oid - kinda redundant but gotta live with
it. nonetheless, postgresql's oids can still be improved.
> And...# of OIDs is finite...so if you have a lot of tables with
> alot of data in each...you run the risk of running out.
finitely limited :)
[---]
Neil D. Quiogue <neil(at)iphil(dot)net>
IPhil Communications Network, Inc.
Other: neil(at)postgresql(dot)org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1998-01-16 02:16:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Patch for glibc2 date problems |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-01-16 00:26:45 | Re: [HACKERS] postgres performance |