| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sehrope Sarkuni <sehrope(at)jackdb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Moon, Insung" <Moon_Insung_i3(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |
| Date: | 2019-08-12 21:50:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20190812215031.igjcbx4e3syvjbn6@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 04:48:31PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I am not even clear if pg_upgrade preserving relfilenode is possible ---
> when we wrap the relfilenode counter, does it start at 1 or at the
> first-user-relation-oid? If the former, it could conflict with oids
> assigned to new system tables in later major releases. Tying the
> preservation of relations to two restrictions seems risky.
For the curious, when relfilenode wraps, it starts at
FirstNormalObjectId, because GetNewRelFileNode eventually calls
GetNewObjectId(), so the concern above is wrong, though this is not an
issue anymore.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2019-08-12 22:23:25 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-12 21:48:33 | Re: SegFault on 9.6.14 |