ruce,
> The oid counter is preserved with -o on reload. It is
> not reset.
I'll let you and Tom duke this one out. :-) It's all
beyond
me.
> > 2. When OID's "wrap around" does the whole database
go
> > kablooie? If so, why hasn't it happened to anyone
yet?
> If
> > not, can you describe the system PGSQL uses to
allocate
> OIDs
> > once it gets to 2,147,xxx,xxx?
>
> oid's start getting re-used on wraparound.
>
This is what I mean. Does the DB engine only recycle
*unused* OIDs (that is, does it check for teh continued
existance of a tuple with OID 198401)? If that's the
method, then there isn't really a problem even if I do
use
OIDs as a primary index. None of my OIDs still in use
will
be touched.
If OIDs start getting re-used regardless if they are
already
present, then, like Tom says, it's Ragnarok. But it
seems
like somebody would have increased the OID to INT8 if
that
were a prospect.
-Josh Berkus
P.S. Bruce, I'm sorry about not sending my comments on
your
book. Do you have any use for copy-editing comments from
the June 28th version, or are you already in pre-press?
