Re: Proposal: OID wraparound: summary and proposal

At 11:22 AM -0400 8/7/01, Tom Lane wrote:
>Neil Tiffin <ntiffin(at)earthlink(dot)net> writes:
>> I have not even considered multiple database servers running
>> different database, which is our design goal. In this case we would
>> like to have a slimmed down (and blazingly fast) PostgreSQL server in
>> which we manage the uid in our middleware. This is because the uid
>> must be unique accross all servers and database vendors.
>
>Given those requirements, it seems like your UID *must* be an
>application-defined column; there's no way you'll get a bunch of
>different database vendors to all sign on to your approach to UIDs.
>
>So in reality, I think the feature you want is precisely to be able
>to suppress Postgres' automatic OID generation on your table(s), since
>it's of no value to you. The number of cycles saved per insert isn't
>going to be all that large, but they'll add up...

That sounds about right. Its amazing how having to write this stuff
down clarifies ones thoughts.

--
Neil
neilt(at)gnue(dot)org
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnuenterprise.org/
http://www.gnuenterprise.org/~neilt/sc.html