| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_migrator progress |
| Date: | 2009-02-18 15:39:10 |
| Message-ID: | 878wo321r5.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> No, but this would just be the same situation that prevails after
> OID-counter wraparound, so I don't see a compelling need for us to
> change the OID counter in the new DB. If the user has done the Proper
> Things (ie, made unique indexes on his OIDs) then it won't matter.
> If he didn't, his old DB was a time bomb anyway.
Well it was a time bomb but it wasn't necessarily about to go off... He may
very well know how close or far he is from oid wraparound and have contingency
plans in place.
Also I wonder about the performance of skipping over thousands or even
millions of OIDs for something like a toast table.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-02-18 15:45:59 | Re: SIMILAR TO bug? |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2009-02-18 15:37:00 | SIMILAR TO bug? |