Re: Indirect indexes

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@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