[erik_seaberg]

A hundred inserts per second is going to hit 2^32 within a year and a half. I've seen that volume repeatedly. A colleague has seen this limit blow up prod. Do you really want to spend time on a project you're sure can never succeed to this extent?

[hobs]

Yep, seen it many times, and I cant tell you how many thousands of times I have seen tables with UUIDv4 primary keys for "future safety" that have 12 rows.

Converting int to bigint is not a big project, I have done more times than I can count just like any database evolution. I have also had customers say "oh, we'll just drop and recreate the table every year because its just some trash data." or "oh wait, we didnt mean to create 100 rows every second every day, that's a bug and costing us a lot of money for something we dont care about."

There's no one size fits all in databases, but most people who don't know better don't need to design a database for scale... because their choices won't work in the long term anyway.

[erik_seaberg]

That table is a self-limiting problem. It's true that failure is likely, but optimizing for that outcome never adds value, and it would probably make me quit.