| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Shruthi Gowda <gowdashru(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: preserving db/ts/relfilenode OIDs across pg_upgrade (was Re: storing an explicit nonce) |
| Date: | 2021-08-26 15:52:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY3oW+sdEhY8K18F=FWfeQ3+x9xzz8z9ET1ti3BYA71JA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:39 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> This looks like a pretty good analysis to me. As it relates to the
> question about allowing users to specify an OID, I'd be inclined to
> allow it but only for OIDs >64k. We've certainly reserved things in the
> past and I don't see any issue with having that reservation here, but if
> we're going to build the capability to specify the OID into CREATE
> DATABASE then it seems a bit odd to disallow users from using it, as
> long as we're preventing them from causing problems with it.
>
> Are there issues that you see with allowing users to specify the OID
> even with the >64k restriction..? I can't think of one offhand but
> perhaps I'm missing something.
So I actually should have said 16k here, not 64k, as somebody already
pointed out to me off-list. Whee!
I don't know of a reason not to let people do that, other than that it
seems like an attractive nuisance. People will do it and it will fail
because they chose a duplicate OID, or they'll complain that a regular
dump and restore didn't preserve their database OIDs, or maybe they'll
expect that they can copy a database from one cluster to another
because they gave it the same OID! That said, I don't see a great harm
in it. It just seems to me like exposing knobs to users that don't
seem to have any legitimate use may be borrowing trouble.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2021-08-26 16:06:44 | Re: Can we get rid of repeated queries from pg_dump? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2021-08-26 15:48:40 | Re: preserving db/ts/relfilenode OIDs across pg_upgrade (was Re: storing an explicit nonce) |