On 4/7/15 10:58 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Why not just create a sequence? I suspect it may not be as fast to assign as
>> an OID, but it's not like you'd be doing this all the time.
>
> What does that have to do with the thread?
The original bit was...
> And finally I have issue with how the new identifiers are allocated.
> Currently, if you create identifier 'foo', remove identifier 'foo' and
> create identifier 'bar', the identifier 'bar' will have same id as the old
> 'foo' identifier. This can be problem because the identifier id is used as
> origin of the data and the replication solution using the replication
> identifiers can end up thinking that data came from node 'bar' even though
> they came from the node 'foo' which no longer exists. This can have bad
> effects for example on conflict detection or debugging problems with
> replication.
>
> Maybe another reason to use standard Oids?
Wasn't the reason for using OIDs so that we're not doing the equivalent
of max(identifier) + 1?
Perhaps I'm just confused...
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
