Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> No, but this would just be the same situation that prevails after
>> OID-counter wraparound, so I don't see a compelling need for us to
>> change the OID counter in the new DB. If the user has done the Proper
>> Things (ie, made unique indexes on his OIDs) then it won't matter.
>> If he didn't, his old DB was a time bomb anyway.
> Also I wonder about the performance of skipping over thousands or even
> millions of OIDs for something like a toast table.
I think that argument is a red herring. In the first place, it's
unlikely that there'd be a huge run of consecutive OIDs *in the same
table*. In the second place, if he does have such runs, the claim that
he can't possibly have dealt with OID wraparound before seems pretty
untenable --- he's obviously been eating lots of OIDs.
But having said that, there isn't any real harm in fixing the OID
counter to match what it was. You need to run pg_resetxlog to set the
WAL position and XID counter anyway, and it can set the OID counter too.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-02-18 15:57:52|
|Subject: Re: The science of optimization in practical terms?|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2009-02-18 15:45:59|
|Subject: Re: SIMILAR TO bug?|