>
> > Strangely enough, I've seen no objection to optional OIDs
> > other than mine. Probably it was my mistake to have formulated
> > a plan on the flimsy assumption.
>
> I for one am more concerned about adding additional per
> tuple overhead (moving from 32 -> 64bit) than loosing OID's
> on some large tables. Imho optional OID's is the best way to combine
> both worlds. OID's only where you absolutely need them, and thus
> a good chance that wraparound does not happen during the lifetime of
> one application. (And all this by reducing overhead, and not adding
> overhead :-)
Agreed, the big selling point for me and optional oid's was removing
their overhead from the tuple header. We need to trim that baby down!
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026