
> > "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > > Please add my opinion for naming rule.
> > 
> > > relname/unique_id but	need some work		new 
> pg_class column,	
> > > no relname change.	for unique-id generation	
> filename not relname
> > 
> > Why is a unique ID better than --- or even different from ---
> > using the relation's OID?  It seems pointless to me...
> 
> just to open up a whole new bucket of worms here, but ... if 
> we do use OID
> (which up until this thought I endorse 100%) ... do we not 
> run a risk if
> we run out of OIDs?  As far as I know, those are still a 
> finite resource,
> no? 
> 
> or, do we just assume that by the time that comes, everyone 
> will be pretty
> much using 64bit machines? :)

I think the idea is to have an option to remove oid's from 
user tables. I don't think you will run out of oid's if you have your bulk
data
not use up oid's.

Andreas

Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:14:43 +0200
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@Wien.Spardat.at>
AW: Big 7.1 open items 