RE: [HACKERS] RE: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend)

2001-07-24 Thread Henshall, Stuart - WCP
> -Original Message- > From: Hiroshi Inoue [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 2:37 AM > To: Henshall, Stuart - WCP > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] RE: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend) > > "Henshall

Re: [HACKERS] RE: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend)

2001-07-23 Thread Hiroshi Inoue
"Henshall, Stuart - WCP" wrote: > > Would it be possible to offer an option for the OID column to get its value > from an int4 primary key (settable on a per table basis maybe)? > - Stuart > Sorry I don't understand well what you mean. What kind of advantages are there if we let OIDs be optional

Re: [HACKERS] Re: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend)

2001-07-18 Thread Horst Herb
On Thursday 19 July 2001 06:08, you wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think it should be off on user tables by default, but kept on system > tables just for completeness.  It could be added at table creation time > or from ALTER TABLEL ADD.  It seems we just use them too m