Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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