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??