| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages) |
| Date: | 2019-01-18 01:15:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzk4_4BgbnjH1zt35kuHqsfGBcCejiEEemO=mYOD1vT5hQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 5:09 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> In the kludgey patch that I posted, the 4-byte value is manufactured
> artificially within a backend in descending order. That may have a
> slight advantage over object oid, even after the pg_depend correctness
> issues are addressed. A fixed order within a backend or originating
> transaction seems like it might avoid a few remaining instability
> issues. Not sure. I seem to recall there being some disagreement
> between you and Andres on this very point (is object oid a perfectly
> stable tie-breaker in practice?) on a similar thread from 2017.
Here are your remarks about it on that 2017 thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/11852.1501610262%40sss.pgh.pa.us
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2019-01-18 01:37:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-01-18 01:09:20 | Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages) |