| From: | Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)barchord(dot)com>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend) |
| Date: | 2001-07-18 21:35:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20010718.21355900@ler-freebie.iadfw.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Didn't know about that one, at least from the reading of the docs...
Thanks,
You answered the question. I knew OID's weren't unique, but they are
likely to be able to distinguish between 2 rows in the same table.
Maybe ctid needs to be documented better?
LER
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 7/18/01, 4:32:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote regarding Re:
OID wraparound (was Re: [HACKERS] pg_depend) :
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Also, without OID's, how do you fix EXACT duplicate records that happen
> >> by accident?
> > How about tid's? SELECT tid FROM tab1.
> "SELECT ctid", actually, but that is still the fallback. (Actually
> it always was --- OIDs aren't necessarily unique either, Larry.)
> regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-07-18 21:38:09 | Re: psql -l |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-07-18 21:35:06 | RE: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend) |