Besides compatibility, what breaks when you make OIDs/Txn IDs
INT8s? Maybe there should be a minor fork called Postgres64 which does
this for those needing large tables.
Jon
johnnyb6@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > Given this, why bother with system-generated OIDs on user rows at all?
> > Why not simply reserve the OIDs for the system tables?
>
> An option to not generate OIDs unless requested (on a table-by-table
> basis) has been discussed. It seems like a fine near-term solution
> to me. 8-byte OIDs are a longer-term solution, because they'll break
> a lot of things (including clients...)
>
> >> This is certainly not ideal, but it's not nearly as big a problem as
> >> transaction ID wraparound. You can live with it, whereas right now
> >> xact ID wraparound is catastrophic. That we gotta work on, soon.
>
> > Nothing like reassuring us commercial DB users, Tom. :-P
> > Can you describe what you're talking about?
>
> It's in the archives: after 4G transactions, your database curls up
> and dies. When your pg_log starts to approach 1Gbyte (2 bits per
> transaction) you'd better plan on dump/initdb/reload.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
