> Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee> writes:
> > This is the clash of views between OO and R parts of ORDB - tho OO part
> > _needs_ oid and a better support structure for OIDs, while the classical
> > RDB (aka. bean-counting ;) part has not need for them..
>
> What's that have to do with it? The direction we are moving in is that
> the globally unique identifier of an object is tableoid+rowoid, not just
> oid; but I fail to see why that's less support than before. If
> anything, I think it's better support. The tableoid tells you which
> table the object is in, and thus its type, whereas a single global OID
> sequence gives you no information at all about what the object
> represented by an OID is or where to look for it.
I like that idea a lot. I had not see that proposed before, to use a
combination table oid/sequence as the globally unique oid. Nice.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
