On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 08:48:10PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In my opinion the current WITH OIDs system has numerous weaknesses:
>
> 1) The fact that oids are so magic means that if we get pluggable
> storage, the design of the potential pluggable systems is constrained
> and similar magic has to be present everywhere.
>
> 2) The fact that the oids in each table have the same counter to be
> based on means that oid wraparounds have much worse consequences
> performance wise than necessary. E.g. once the global counter has
> wrapped, all toast tables start to be significantly slower.
>
> It would be much better if most database objects had their own
> counters.
>
> 3) For some oid using objects (toast, large objects at the very least)
> it'd be quite worthwhile to switch to 8 byte ids. Currently that's
> hard to do, because it'd break on-disk compatibility.
>
> 4) There's a lot of special case code around for dealing with oids.
>
> 5a) The fact that system table oids don't show up in selects by default
> makes it more work than necessary to look at catalogs.
>
> 5b) Similarly, it's fairly annoying when debugging not to trivially see
> oids for catalog structs.
>
>
> I think we should drop WITH OIDs support.
+1
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
