From: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Solving the OID-collision problem |
Date: | 2005-08-09 15:01:14 |
Message-ID: | 42F8C53A.5030306@archonet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> What if there aren't any "untouched chunks"? With only 64K-chunk
> granularity, I think you'd hit that condition a lot more than you are
> hoping. Also, this seems to assume uniqueness across all tables in an
> entire cluster, which is much more than we want; it makes the 32-bit
> size of OIDs significantly more worrisome than when they only need to be
> unique within a table.
Can I ask what happens if we end up re-using a recently de-allocated
OID? Specifically, can a cached plan (e.g. plpgsql function) end up
referring to an object created after it was planned:
CREATE FUNCTION f1()... -- oid=1234
CREATE FUNCTION f2()... -- oid=1235, calls f1() or oid=1234
DROP FUNCTION f1()
CREATE FUNCTION f3()... -- re-uses oid=1234
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matt Miller | 2005-08-09 15:01:29 | Re: PL/pgSQL: #option select_into_1_row (was SELECT INTO |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-08-09 14:58:56 | Re: FW: [VulnWatch] [AppSecInc Advisory MYSQL05-V0003] Multiple Issues with MySQL User Defined Functions |