| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb |
| Date: | 2019-07-28 16:42:59 |
| Message-ID: | 9495.1564332179@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-07-28 10:07:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In the long run, might we ever switch to 64-bit OIDs? I dunno.
> Depends on the the table, I'd say. Having toast tables have 64bit ids,
> and not advance the oid counter, would be quite the advantage over the
> current situation. Toasting performance craters once the oid counter has
> wrapped. But obviously there are upgrade problems there - presumably
> we'd need 'narrow" and 'wide' toast tables, or such.
Yeah, but I'd be inclined to fix toast tables as a special case,
rather than widening OIDs in general. We could define the chunk
number as being int8 not OID for the "wide" style.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-07-28 17:37:07 | Re: [PATCH] Add support for ON UPDATE/DELETE actions on ALTER CONSTRAINT |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-07-28 16:42:44 | Re: ANALYZE: ERROR: tuple already updated by self |