Re: Allowing extensions to find out the OIDs of their member objects

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Allowing extensions to find out the OIDs of their member objects
Date: 2019-01-22 19:09:33
Message-ID: 20190122190933.fnv5ws4yhbl3cisk@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-01-21 19:41:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > It'd be more
> > realistic to create a new zone at UINT32_MAX - something, but that'd
> > likely still conflict in plenty installations (thanks to toast and WITH
> > OIDS tables). I'm curious as to how to solve that, if you have a
> > sketch - less because of this, and more because I think it's not
> > unlikely that we'll encounter the need for this at some point not too
> > far away.
>
> I have no idea how we'd move table or type OIDs, given that those are
> potentially on-disk. (Actually ... are table OIDs really on-disk
> anywhere in user data? Types yes, but tables?)

Not quite the same, but toast table oids are on-disk, inside toast
datums.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2019-01-22 19:17:56 Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries
Previous Message Donald Dong 2019-01-22 19:08:40 Install JIT headers