Gregory Stark <st...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> No, but this would just be the same situation that prevails after
>> OID-counter wraparound, so I don't see a compelling need for us to
>> change the OID counter in the new DB. If the user has done the Proper
>> Things (ie, made unique indexes on his OIDs) then it won't matter.
>> If he didn't, his old DB was a time bomb anyway.
> Also I wonder about the performance of skipping over thousands or even
> millions of OIDs for something like a toast table.
I think that argument is a red herring. In the first place, it's
unlikely that there'd be a huge run of consecutive OIDs *in the same
table*. In the second place, if he does have such runs, the claim that
he can't possibly have dealt with OID wraparound before seems pretty
untenable --- he's obviously been eating lots of OIDs.
But having said that, there isn't any real harm in fixing the OID
counter to match what it was. You need to run pg_resetxlog to set the
WAL position and XID counter anyway, and it can set the OID counter too.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
