| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | sqllist <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff MacDonald <jeff(at)pgsql(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: OID Perfomance - Object-Relational databases |
| Date: | 2000-10-04 03:43:51 |
| Message-ID: | 2476.970631031@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> SO I'm concerned about the problems you mentioned above. pg_dump has a
> -o option; are there problems with this? And how liekly are counter
> overflow problems?
The trouble with pg_dump -o is that after reload, the OID generator
will be set to max(any OID in the dumped data). So a dump & reload
doesn't do anything to postpone OID-wraparound Ragnarok.
As for the likelihood of overflow, figure 4G / tuple creation rate
for your installation (not database, but whole installation controlled
by one postmaster). Unless your installation has just one active
table, per-table sequence values look like a better bet.
BTW, there *is* talk of providing an 8-byte-OID option, but I'm not
holding my breath for it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2000-10-04 04:10:34 | Re: OID Perfomance - Object-Relational databases |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-04 03:36:57 | Re: OID Perfomance - Object-Relational databases |