| From: | Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Test cluster with high OIDs above the signed-int limit (2B+) |
| Date: | 2026-04-20 13:22:53 |
| Message-ID: | CANzqJaAWuD+JBk03Q02=UBLAPBsOonyww7xsPon9Op_zk-4EDw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 9:08 AM Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 2:59 PM Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > No. I don't even remember the exact bug
>
> Was an old test using lo_creat(-1) RETURNING the OID, and code doing
> `std::stoi(PQgetvalue(...))`. In production we don't use LO and use
> the binary protocol, so no such issue, still my original point
> remains. We process OIDs in several places, and making sure our test
> suite works with high OIDs would be better. If I fully control the
> cluster, which is created specifically for the test run, on-the-fly,
> it's like to be able to similate high OIDs "instantly".
>
It's an unsigned integer, so I'd say not use signed ints when processing
OIDs.
It's a valid question, though, what happens when the OID counter wraps
around and hits a duplicate.
--
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-04-20 13:29:38 | Re: Test cluster with high OIDs above the signed-int limit (2B+) |
| Previous Message | Dominique Devienne | 2026-04-20 13:08:35 | Re: Test cluster with high OIDs above the signed-int limit (2B+) |