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?
-Matt
