Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [GENERAL] row oids as "foreign keys" in other tables ?

From: Matt McClure <matthew(dot)mcclure(at)yale(dot)edu>
To: Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] row oids as "foreign keys" in other tables ?
Date: 1998-07-29 13:16:18
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998, Vadim Mikheev wrote:

> Matt McClure wrote:
> > 
> > You say that vacuum "re-writes" the database.  Does it alter row oids???
>                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> No.
> > If so, my scheme completely corrupts my database whenever I do a vacuum,
> > since in concert and song the row oids would change, but my inserted
> > values would remain the same in concert_song, right?
> > 
> > If vacuum does not alter row oids, then I have another question.  How does
> > postgres re-use oids?  I've seen the numbers grow and grow, but despite
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It doesn't.
> > deletes, etc, I have never seen a lower oid get re-used.  How does this
> > work?
> Vadim

Thanks for the help.

Doesn't the fact that postgres never re-uses deleted (and therefore no    
longer in use anywhere) oids create a problem when you reach the upper    
bound?  Or is the upper bound on oids so ridiculously high that it
shouldn't be a concern?  Or does postgres have a scheme for increasing    
oids without bound entirely?

In any case, using row oids from one table as values in another table
won't ever be an issue, right?


In response to


pgsql-general by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 1998-07-29 13:24:59
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postgres vs commercial products
Previous:From: Andrew MartinDate: 1998-07-29 12:22:39
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Postgres vs commercial products

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group