Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
FYI, I decided against restoring the oid counter because it might collide with an oid assigned during pg_migrator schema creation. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
