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

Re: [GENERAL] row oids as "foreign keys" in other tables ?

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 (view raw or flat)
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


In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 1998-07-29 13:24:59
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postgres vs commercial products
Previous:From: Andrew MartinDate: 1998-07-29 12:22:39
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postgres vs commercial products

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