From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Indirect indexes
In-reply-to: <20161021230410.kyngu5dzssvi44wk@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20161021230410.kyngu5dzssvi44wk@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Fri, 21 Oct 2016 20:04:10 -0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <28767.1477091556.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 19:12:36 -0400
Message-ID: <28768.1477091556@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

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


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers