| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2003-12-15 02:41:50 |
| Message-ID: | 3FDD1F6E.5030100@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> No. The proposed pg_upgrade procedure doesn't try to reproduce OIDs of
> catalog entries (other than toast-table OIDs, which are never
> preassigned anyway), so there's no issue.
>
> Good point though --- thanks for thinking about it.
What about cached OIDs in view and function definitions, etc...?
Like if someone had a view that used the old oidrand() function and now
we reused that oid for a new, completely different function, would
breakage occur?
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2003-12-15 02:44:55 | Re: ORDER BY and DISTINCT ON |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-15 02:29:59 | Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade |