Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: OID assistance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Spiegelberg <gspiegelberg(at)cranel(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: OID assistance
Date: 2005-02-18 16:40:36
Message-ID: 18969.1108744836@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin
Greg Spiegelberg <gspiegelberg(at)cranel(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, put a unique index on the contents column.  Better to fail an
>> insert than to get a conflict of LO OIDs.

> Can't do that.  Our app won't handle it.

Actually, I think the lo_import() will fail anyway, whether you like it
or not.  There's a unique index on pg_largeobject.

> This does lead me to 2 questions... first, why is this still an issue and
> not fixed in the backend where OID's are managed?

When you're two major versions behind, you don't have a lot of leeway to
complain about why things are still an issue ;-).  But the short answer
is that making OIDs 8 bytes would permanently break platforms that don't
have int64 support, and be a nontrivial performance hit on those where
int64 is substantially slower than int32.  So I'd say it's a good ways
into the future yet.  Eventually we'll decide we don't care about 32-bit
machines anymore, but not for awhile.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Geoffrey DucharmeDate: 2005-02-18 19:25:05
Subject: Task manager fails to terminate postmaster process.
Previous:From: Greg SpiegelbergDate: 2005-02-18 16:27:24
Subject: Re: OID assistance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group