On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> > wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Keean Schupke <keean@fry-it.com> > wrote: > >> > >> You can do it in SQL because tables that hold a reference to an ID can > >> declare the reference in the schema. I guess without the meta-data to do > >> this it cannot be done. > > > > Even in SQL, I'd be very hesitant to do this. > > > >> > >> Why not get the auto-increment to wrap and skip collisions? What about > >> signed numbers? > > > > Exactly. If we're going to support this, let's keep it super simple. As > > Jonas mentioned, it's very unlikely that anyone would hit the 64bit limit > in > > legitimate usage, so it's not worth trying to gracefully handle such a > > situation and adding a lot of surface area. > > Indeed. I'd prefer to fail fatally to trying to do something > complicated and clever here. I'd be surprised if anyone ever ran into > this issue unintentionally (i.e. when not explicitly testing to see > what happens). > > One way to look at it is that before we run into 2^64 limit, we'll run > into the limit that javascript can't represent all integers above > 2^53. So once IDs get above that you basically won't be able to use > the object store anyway. > Good point. Actually we probably need to spec the limit to be 2^52ish so that the auto number is never anything greater than what javascript can address. J
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 21:05:58 UTC