From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend) |
Date: | 2001-07-18 23:47:38 |
Message-ID: | 200107182347.f6INlcP04501@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >> I meant we use them in many cases to link entries, and in
> >> pg_description for descriptions and lots of other things
> >> that may use them in the future for system table use.
>
> pg_description is a point I hadn't thought about --- it uses OIDs
> to refer to pg_attribute entries. However, pg_description is pretty
> broken in its assumptions about OIDs anyway. I'm inclined to change
> it to be indexed by
>
> (object type ID, object OID, attributenumber)
>
> the same way that Philip proposed indexing pg_depend. Among other
> things, that'd make it much cheaper to drop comments during a DROP
> TABLE. You could just scan on (object type ID, object OID), and get
> both the table and all its columns in a single indexscan search,
> not one per column as happens now.
Remember most pg_description comments are not on column but on functions
and stuff. That attributenumber is not going to apply there.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2001-07-18 23:48:20 | Re: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend) |
Previous Message | Ross J. Reedstrom | 2001-07-18 23:45:06 | Re: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend) |