Re: preserving db/ts/relfilenode OIDs across pg_upgrade (was Re: storing an explicit nonce)

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:36:51AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> * Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:00:47AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > Anyone see a flaw in that analysis?
> >
> > I am still waiting to hear the purpose of this preservation. As long as
> > you don't apply the patch, I guess I will just stop asking.
>
> I'm a bit confused why this question keeps coming up as we've discussed
> multiple reasons (incremental backups, possible use for TDE which would

I have not seen much explaination on pgBackRest, except me mentioning
it. Is this something really useful?

As far as TDE, I haven't seen any concrete plan for that, so why add
this code for that reason?

> make this required, general improved sanity when working with pg_upgrade
> is frankly a benefit in its own right too...). If the additional code

How? I am not aware of any advantage except cosmetic.

> was a huge burden or even a moderate one then that might be an argument
> against, but it hardly sounds like it will be given Robert's thorough
> analysis so far and the (admittedly not complete, but not that far from
> it based on the DB OID review) proposed patch.

I am find to add it if it is minor, but I want to see the calculus of
its value vs complexity, which I have not seen spelled out.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.