RE: unique row identifier data type exhausted . . .
От | Franck Martin |
---|---|
Тема | RE: unique row identifier data type exhausted . . . |
Дата | |
Msg-id | F12ECEA0435AD211B5280008C7ACBC857FEAC3@BIGIRON обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | unique row identifier data type exhausted . . . (Frank Joerdens <frank@joerdens.de>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
For me it seems more a design problem than the length of internal number.... Why not create a table with 2 field containing int, setting the primary key on both of them and running a sequencing scheme on both as if it was a single number.... There are no more limitations anymore, as if you know you will need a lot of record you may decide to use 1, 2, or 3 numbers... Question, does postgress is able to run sequence on 2 combined numbers... Cheers... Franck Martin Network and Database Development Officer SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission Fiji E-mail: franck@sopac.org.fj <mailto:franck@sopac.org.fj> Web site: www.sopac.org.fj <http://www.sopac.org.fj> -----Original Message----- From: Tom Cook [mailto:tcook@lisa.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 11:49 AM To: Pgsql-General@Postgresql. Org Subject: RE: [GENERAL] unique row identifier data type exhausted . . . On Mon, 24 Apr 2000, Andrew Snow wrote: > > When we are sure all platforms support 64-bit int's, we will move in > > that direction. > > Sorry if this is a stupid question, but couldn't you fairly easily make it > an option at compile time? To use either 32 or 64 bit OID's. > (And, less importantly, for sequences) Is this necessarily a good solution? If you use 64-bit OIDs, some joker will just hook up a several-terra-byte disk array to his machine, try to store the location of every molecule in the universe and break it. Admittedly, ~2x10^20 is a very large number, but that's what they thought about 2000, also... What I'm saying is, is there a better way of doing this?
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: