From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "fkater(at)googlemail(dot)com" <fkater(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: OIDs depending data -- how to dump/restore? |
Date: | 2010-03-14 20:22:38 |
Message-ID: | 201003141322.38870.adrian.klaver@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sunday 14 March 2010 1:09:37 pm fkater(at)googlemail(dot)com wrote:
> Adrian Klaver:
> > > AFAIK the dump/restore does not rebuild the original OID
> > > values, so all relations built accross OIDs fail.
> > >
> > > (1)
> > > Is there a way to keep the original OID values somehow?
> >
> > From here:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/app-pgdump.html
> >
> > -o
> > --oids
> >
> > Dump object identifiers (OIDs) as part of the data for every table.
> > Use this option if your application references the OID columns in some
> > way (e.g., in a foreign key constraint). Otherwise, this option should
> > not be used.
>
> Thanks, but the problem is *restoring* OIDs afterwards,
> isn't it? AFAIK the OIDs being restored are not the same
> values as the ones being saved, so my internal relations to
> those OIDs are all mixed up after a restore.
>
> I'd be happy if someone told me that this was wrong. :-)
Be happy then. If you do not specify the -o switch the oids are created on
demand when the dump file is restored and you get the situation you describe.
By specifying the -o switch you tell pg_dump to preserve the OIDS used in the
original database. This is why the following is mentioned in the above
description:
"Use this option if your application references the OID columns in some
way (e.g., in a foreign key constraint)."
>
> Felix
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Carlo Stonebanks | 2010-03-15 00:07:24 | $libdir/plugins/plugin_debugger.dll |
Previous Message | Gordon Shannon | 2010-03-14 20:11:50 | Re: unexplained autovacuum to prevent wraparound |