Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
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 03:19:30
Message-ID: 5417.1071458370@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
>> Doesn't matter. Catalog entries are dumped and reloaded; there is no
>> carry-forward of OIDs.

> Large objects included?

No. Large object OIDs are preserved in the given proposal.

(Note to self: I wonder whether the recently-added COMMENT ON LARGE
OBJECT facility works at all over dump/reload...)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2003-12-15 03:21:42 Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-12-15 03:17:35 Re: ORDER BY and DISTINCT ON