RE: unique row identifier data type exhausted . . .

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?