On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 2:58 PM Nikita Malakhov <huku...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why pg_upgrade cannot be used? > We document both a pg_dump/pg_restore migration and a pg_upgrade one (not to mention that logical backup and restore would cause the oids to change). It seems odd to have a feature that requires pg_upgrade to be the chosen one. pg_upgrade is an option, not a requirement. Same goes for pg_basebackup. pg_upgrade itself warns that should the on-disk file format change then it would be unusable - though I suspect that we'd end up with some kind of hybrid approach in that case. > OID preservation logic is already implemented > for several OIDs in catalog tables, like pg_class, type, relfilenode, > enum... > > We are allowed to preserve oids if we wish but that doesn't mean we must, nor does doing so constitute a declaration that such oids are part of the public API. And I don't see us making OIDs part of the public API unless we modify pg_dump to include them in its output. > Actually, I've asked here because there are several references to PG_PROC > oids > from other tables in the system catalog > Of course there are, e.g., views depending on functions would result is those. But pg_upgrade et al. recomputes the views so the changing of oids isn't a problem. Long text fields are common in databases; and if there are concerns with parsing/interpretation we can add functions to make doing that simpler. David J.
