From: | Bo Lorentsen <bl(at)netgroup(dot)dk> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: OID Usage |
Date: | 2005-01-14 18:58:25 |
Message-ID: | 41E81651.1020900@netgroup.dk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote:
>The thing you have to worry about is the possibility of duplicate OIDs
>once your DB has been running long enough for the OID counter to wrap
>around (2^32 OIDs). You should make sure that index is specifically
>declared as UNIQUE, so that any attempt to insert a duplicate OID will
>fail. That might be enough for you, or you might want to add logic to
>your application to retry automatically after such a failure.
>
>
Ahh, yes ... this was what I thought may have be the problem, Not that
2^32 is a small number, but as time goes by on a busy system, this will
happened one day.
Unique index is a good plan, it will make an error but no data will be
harmed then !
How does PG itself handle a search on an duplicated oid, without a index
... return two rows ?
Will there be a future substitute for PGoidValue that is more reliable,
like a rowid ?
Thanks anyway !
/BL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-01-14 19:01:57 | Re: ntfs for windows port rc5-2 |
Previous Message | Frank D. Engel, Jr. | 2005-01-14 18:47:54 | Re: [HACKERS] Much Ado About COUNT(*) |