| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Shruthi Gowda <gowdashru(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sadhuprasad Patro <b(dot)sadhu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: preserving db/ts/relfilenode OIDs across pg_upgrade (was Re: storing an explicit nonce) |
| Date: | 2022-01-21 18:57:18 |
| Message-ID: | 1203379.1642791438@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It seems to me that what this comment is saying is that OIDs in the
> second and third categories are doled out by counters. Therefore, we
> can't know which of those OIDs will get used, or how many of them will
> get used, or which objects will get which OIDs. Therefore, I think we
> should go back to the approach that you were using for template0 and
> handle both that database and postgres using that method. That is,
> assign an OID manually, and make sure unused_oids knows that it should
> be counted as already used.
Indeed. If you're going to manually assign OIDs to these databases,
do it honestly, and put them into the range intended for that purpose.
Trying to take short-cuts is just going to cause trouble down the road.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-01-21 18:58:16 | Re: A test for replay of regression tests |
| Previous Message | James Coleman | 2022-01-21 18:55:10 | Re: Document atthasmissing default optimization avoids verification table scan |