Jan Wieck wrote: > On 6/12/2006 5:24 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: >> Jim C. Nasby wrote: >>> Moving to slony1-general... >>> >>> Hmm... is sl_trigger intentionally created WITH OIDs? >>> >> None of the Slony-I internal tables are defined with reference to "WITH >> OIDS" or "WITHOUT OIDS". >> >> In effect, they will take on the local behaviour of the version of >> PostgreSQL on which they are defined. >> >> I don't think sl_trigger will be particularly interesting; it is a >> config table that could chew up a few OIDs, but is not frequently >> updated, so it won't chew up many. >> >> In contrast, sl_event, sl_log_1, sl_seqlog, sl_log_2, could all chew up >> plenty of OIDs if they are, by default, created with OIDs. >> >> Presumably one could alter these tables thus: >> >> alter table _myschema.sl_log_1 set without oids; >> >> I think I'd want to test this before doing it, and consider taking a >> brief application outage to implement it, assuming it worked fine in >> test... > > Slony itself doesn't depend on OID's, so it'd be safe to actually > create all Slony tables explicitly without oid's. > Interesting.
Then it could be a good change to deploy in general, to specify all tables in the Slony-I schema as "WITHOUT OIDS". I'm not sure it's wise to add it just as I'm hoping to start proposing release candidates for 1.2.0; do you think it would be a good idea to add this now?? _______________________________________________ Slony1-general mailing list [email protected] http://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
