RE: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend)

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend)
Date: 2001-07-19 15:54:24
Message-ID: 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E320166DD@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Yes, nowhere near, and yes. Sequence objects require disk I/O to
> update; the OID counter essentially lives in shared memory, and can
> be bumped for the price of a spinlock access.

Sequences also cache values (32 afair) - ie one log record is required
for 32 nextval-s. Sequence' data file is updated at checkpoint time,
so - not so much IO. I really think that using sequences for system
tables IDs would be good.

Vadim

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Volpe 2001-07-19 16:40:13 Re: [PATCHES] Re: [PATCH] Re: Setuid functions
Previous Message J-P Guy 2001-07-19 15:19:11 Re: OID wraparound (was Re: pg_depend)