On 4/7/15 9:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-03-28 23:50:20 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
And finally I have issue with how the new identifiers are allocated.
Currently, if you create identifier 'foo', remove identifier 'foo' and
create identifier 'bar', the identifier 'bar' will have same id as the old
'foo' identifier. This can be problem because the identifier id is used as
origin of the data and the replication solution using the replication
identifiers can end up thinking that data came from node 'bar' even though
they came from the node 'foo' which no longer exists. This can have bad
effects for example on conflict detection or debugging problems with
replication.
Maybe another reason to use standard Oids?
As the same reason exists for oids, just somewhat less likely, I don't
see it as a reason for much. It's really not that hard to get oid
conflicts once your server has lived for a while. As soon as the oid
counter has wrapped around once, it's not unlikely to have
conflicts. And with temp tables (or much more extremely WITH OID tables)
and such it's not that hard to reach that point. The only material
difference this makes is that it's much easier to notice the problem
during development.
Why not just create a sequence? I suspect it may not be as fast to
assign as an OID, but it's not like you'd be doing this all the time.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
