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.


For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -

Reply via email to