Russ Ferriday wrote:
(You could get away with a byte for the server ID, leaving masses of bits for the item ID.)


That's probably a good idea, but I'd prefer to use the least significant byte for the server ID, effectively allocating OIDs modulo 256. :-) Also, it's becoming clear that each server should have an independent new_oid table (rather than replicate it), and we should do something to ensure the server ID component of the OID is always correct.

Shane

_______________________________________________
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -  ZODB-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev

Reply via email to