| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| 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 02:48:20 |
| Message-ID: | 5203.1071456500@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> What about cached OIDs in view and function definitions, etc...?
Doesn't matter. Catalog entries are dumped and reloaded; there is no
carry-forward of OIDs.
I suppose if someone were storing OIDs of tables or functions or views
in user tables, this procedure would break the references. But that
would be true of a dump/reload under current procedures as well. I'm
willing to say that that's unsupported.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-12-15 02:51:06 | Re: ORDER BY and DISTINCT ON |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-12-15 02:44:55 | Re: ORDER BY and DISTINCT ON |