| From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SET WITHOUT OIDS and VACUUM badness? |
| Date: | 2004-01-21 10:54:13 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0401212151380.17265@linuxworld.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> This is what we did:
>
> 0. BEGIN;
>
> 1. ALTER TABLE ... SET WITHOUT OIDS
> 12. ROLLBACK;
>
> 13. VACUUM FULL forums_posts;
The problem here is that this conditional doesn't take into account the
change in state which the above transaction causes:
if (onerel->rd_rel->relhasoids &&
!OidIsValid(HeapTupleGetOid(&tuple)))
Tuples inserted after step one have no (valid) OID. However, since we
rollback, the change to pg_class.relhasoids => 'f' is rolled back. The
only solution I can think of is removing the test or storing relhasoids as
a per tuple flag (argh).
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2004-01-21 11:20:47 | Re: SET WITHOUT OIDS and VACUUM badness? |
| Previous Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2004-01-21 10:03:02 | Re: SET WITHOUT OIDS and VACUUM badness? |