> Strangely enough, I've seen no objection to optional OIDs
> other than mine. Probably it was my mistake to have formulated
> a plan on the flimsy assumption.
I for one am more concerned about adding additional per
tuple overhead (moving from 32 -> 64bit) than loosing OID's
on some large tables. Imho optional OID's is the best way to combine
both worlds. OID's only where you absolutely need them, and thus
a good chance that wraparound does not happen during the lifetime of
one application. (And all this by reducing overhead, and not adding
overhead :-)
Andreas
