The elimination is in concert with the dying of popularity in 'Object
Oriented Databases', right?
Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
>On 3 Sep 2003 at 10:27, Malcolm Warren wrote:
>
>
>
>>To sum up: The Debian migration gzip file declares that oids are not
>>guaranteed to be unique, issues dire warnings about using them as keys and
>>worst of all states that they may be phased out in the future.
>>
>>The book states that they are unique, tells you how to use them, actually
>>gives an example of using them as primary and foreign keys (which
>>fortunately I decided was not very wise) and certainly doesn't say anything
>>about phasing them out in the future.
>>
>>
>
>Yes. It is correct. As of 7.3.x and onwards oids are optional at table creation
>times. They default to be available for new objects but that is for backwards
>compatibility I believe. In future, they would default to be not available for
>a particular object(hopefully). Right now you need to explicitly specify no
>oids while creating tables etc.
>
>About oids not being unique, oids can assume 4 billion different values. If you
>have more than those many rows in a table, oids will wrap around and will no
>longer be unique in that object.
>
>About oids being eliminated, I am sure it would happen some time in the future,
>looking at the development on this issue. Core team could elaborate more on
>this.
>
>Correct me if I am wrong.
>
>HTH
>
>Bye
> Shridhar
>
>--
>Nusbaum's Rule: The more pretentious the corporate name, the smaller the
>organization. (For instance, the Murphy Center for the Codification of Human
>and Organizational Law, contrasted to IBM, GM, and AT&T.)
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
>
>
