Re: Re: AW: Re: OID wraparound: summary and proposal

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Alex Pilosov <alex(at)pilosoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: AW: Re: OID wraparound: summary and proposal
Date: 2001-08-07 04:14:13
Message-ID: 3B6F6B15.7B423C15@tm.ee
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> > Am I being overly simplistic?
>
> Yes. For one thing, Relation structs are *not* shared, nor even
> persistent (the relcache will happily discard them).

Will it be easier to make Relation shared and persistent or creating
a new shared structure that has just a counter+lock for each
relation oid ?

> For another, you
> haven't mentioned how we keep the counter up-to-date across system
> restarts.

Perhaps write it to database at checkpoints and get the last INSERTED
record
from WAL at restart ?

Probably too simplistic as well ;)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2001-08-07 05:09:24 Re: Proposal: OID wraparound: summary and proposal
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2001-08-07 04:09:33 Re: OID wraparound: summary and proposal