Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hmm there seems to be an assumption that people could
> > know whether they need OID or not for each table.
>
> A good point, and one reason not to make no-OIDs the default. I'm
> envisioning that people will turn off OIDs only fo
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
> > 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 -> 64b
Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The followings are the result of vote which I remember
> well.
FWIW, I changed my vote ;-). I'm not sure what Vadim and Lamar think
at the moment, but I thought you made good arguments.
regards, tom lane
--
Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm there seems to be an assumption that people could
> know whether they need OID or not for each table.
A good point, and one reason not to make no-OIDs the default. I'm
envisioning that people will turn off OIDs only for tables that they
know will b
> 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
