Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> So, I think that this is a really promising direction, but also that
>> you should try very hard to try to get out from under this 6-byte PK
>> limitation. That seems really ugly, and in practice it probably means
>> your PK is probably going to be limited to int4, which is kind of sad
>> since it leaves people using int8 or text PKs out in the cold.
> I think we could just add a new type, unsigned 6 byte int, specifically
> for this purpose.
I think that's a really bad idea, because after you've fixed this
hopefully-temporary limitation, we'll still be stuck carrying this
weird type forever. Besides which, doesn't the existing TID type
already serve the purpose?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
