| From: | Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | ldm(at)apartia(dot)ch |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: OID decreasing? |
| Date: | 2000-08-17 23:23:43 |
| Message-ID: | 399C73FF.C73748C3@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
I'm totally guessing here, but sometimes databases use a scheme where
each backend process grabs a chunk of oids for its own use to avoid
process contention on this single resource. Were they created with
multiple connections?
Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> In this table one can see that OID 178502 was created after OID 178593.
> Is this normal behaviour? I thought that OID sequences kept going up.
>
> oid | login | price | created
> --------+-----------+-------+------------------------
> 178383 | vindex | 32500 | 2000-08-14 16:21:04+02
> 178384 | cunctator | 33000 | 2000-08-17 09:03:17+02
> 178432 | papy | 33500 | 2000-08-17 09:15:15+02
> 178465 | vindex | 34000 | 2000-08-17 09:15:59+02
> 178496 | papy | 34500 | 2000-08-17 09:21:33+02
> 178497 | vindex | 35000 | 2000-08-17 09:21:33+02
> 178499 | papy | 65000 | 2000-08-17 12:27:09+02
> 178501 | vindex | 75000 | 2000-08-17 12:27:09+02
> 178502 | papy | 77500 | 2000-08-17 12:27:09+02
> 178528 | papy | 35500 | 2000-08-17 12:26:02+02
> 178529 | vindex | 36000 | 2000-08-17 12:26:02+02
> 178561 | papy | 55000 | 2000-08-17 12:26:25+02
> 178562 | vindex | 57500 | 2000-08-17 12:26:25+02
> 178592 | papy | 60000 | 2000-08-17 12:26:52+02
> 178593 | vindex | 62500 | 2000-08-17 12:26:52+02
>
> --
> Louis-David Mitterrand - ldm(at)apartia(dot)org - http://www.apartia.org
>
> Linux: The Ultimate NT Service Pack
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-08-17 23:54:53 | Re: From MSSQL to Postgres |
| Previous Message | Fetter, David M | 2000-08-17 21:57:04 | RE: timestamp variable type losing data |