| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2003-12-15 02:51:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20031215025123.GA14029@dcc.uchile.cl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 09:48:20PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > What about cached OIDs in view and function definitions, etc...?
>
> Doesn't matter. Catalog entries are dumped and reloaded; there is no
> carry-forward of OIDs.
>
> I suppose if someone were storing OIDs of tables or functions or views
> in user tables, this procedure would break the references. But that
> would be true of a dump/reload under current procedures as well. I'm
> willing to say that that's unsupported.
Large objects included?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
FOO MANE PADME HUM
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-15 03:00:14 | Re: ORDER BY and DISTINCT ON |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-12-15 02:51:06 | Re: ORDER BY and DISTINCT ON |