RE: Re: postgres TODO - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hiroshi Inoue
Subject RE: Re: postgres TODO
Date
Msg-id 001f01bfeba4$497791c0$2801007e@tpf.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: postgres TODO  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Re: postgres TODO  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org]On
> Behalf Of Tom Lane
> 
> it.  We already return the OID which is sufficient info to select the
> row again if you need it.  Returning the primary key would be
> considerably more work for no visible gain in functionality...
>

Is OID really sufficient ?
I've wondered why people love OID so much.
PostgreSQL provides no specific access method using OID.
We couldn't assume that every table has its OID index,
when we need to handle general resultsets.
In fact,I've never created OID indexes on user tables.

I've forgotten to propose that INSERT returns TID together
with OID before 7.0.  This has been in my mind since
I planned to implement Tid scan. Different from OID
,TID has its specific (fast) access method now.

Comments ?

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alfred Perlstein
Date:
Subject: Connection pooling.
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Vacuum only with 20% old tuples