Re: AW: OID wraparound: summary and proposal

> 
> > 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. Imho optional OID's is the best way to combine 
> both worlds. OID's only where you absolutely need them, and thus
> a good chance that wraparound does not happen during the lifetime of 
> one application. (And all this by reducing overhead, and not adding 
> overhead :-)

Agreed, the big selling point for me and optional oid's was removing
their overhead from the tuple header.  We need to trim that baby down! 

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026