From: | Matt McClure <matthew(dot)mcclure(at)yale(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] row oids as "foreign keys" in other tables ? |
Date: | 1998-07-29 13:16:18 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.3.94.980729091324.28329E-100000@mercury.cis.yale.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
> Matt McClure wrote:
> >
> > You say that vacuum "re-writes" the database. Does it alter row oids???
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> No.
>
> > If so, my scheme completely corrupts my database whenever I do a vacuum,
> > since in concert and song the row oids would change, but my inserted
> > values would remain the same in concert_song, right?
> >
> > If vacuum does not alter row oids, then I have another question. How does
> > postgres re-use oids? I've seen the numbers grow and grow, but despite
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It doesn't.
>
> > deletes, etc, I have never seen a lower oid get re-used. How does this
> > work?
>
> Vadim
>
Thanks for the help.
Doesn't the fact that postgres never re-uses deleted (and therefore no
longer in use anywhere) oids create a problem when you reach the upper
bound? Or is the upper bound on oids so ridiculously high that it
shouldn't be a concern? Or does postgres have a scheme for increasing
oids without bound entirely?
In any case, using row oids from one table as values in another table
won't ever be an issue, right?
-Matt
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1998-07-29 13:24:59 | Re: [GENERAL] Postgres vs commercial products |
Previous Message | Andrew Martin | 1998-07-29 12:22:39 | Re: [GENERAL] Postgres vs commercial products |