From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)inquent(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Thought on OIDs |
Date: | 2001-03-02 16:31:34 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0103021727350.775-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Rod Taylor writes:
> Someones bound to hit it in a year or 2 as Postgres is getting pretty
> good for large projects as well as the small, especially with 7.1's
> speed enhancements. Hopefully 7.2 will create cycling OIDs and XIDs.
> Then less problems in 'unlimited' extendability.
The easiest approach for OIDs will probably be making them optional in the
first place. For the vast majority of users, the OIDs are just wasting
space.
The cycling XID idea is based on the assertion that eventually all
transactions will be closed, at which time a record is either known
committed or known dead so that the XID can be recycled. For OIDs, this
is not practical. And if you wanted OIDs that automatically fill in the
holes, that's probably not realistic.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mitch Vincent | 2001-03-02 16:31:58 | Re: Re: Convert to upper |
Previous Message | David Wheeler | 2001-03-02 16:30:00 | Re: Perl & DBI/DBD::Pg confusion with finish |