Re: HeapTupleSatisfiesToast() busted? (was atomic pin/unpin causing errors)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: HeapTupleSatisfiesToast() busted? (was atomic pin/unpin causing errors) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 17991.1462903579@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: HeapTupleSatisfiesToast() busted? (was atomic pin/unpin causing errors) (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: HeapTupleSatisfiesToast() busted? (was atomic
pin/unpin causing errors)
Re: HeapTupleSatisfiesToast() busted? (was atomic pin/unpin causing errors) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: >> It's not super likely, yea. But you don't really need to "use" 4 billion >> oids to get a wraparound. Once you have a significant number of values >> in various toast tables, the oid counter progresses really rather fast, >> without many writes. That's because the oid counter is global, but each >> individual toast write (and other things), perform checks via >> GetNewOidWithIndex(). > Understood. Sooner or later we are going to need to go to 8-byte TOAST object identifiers. Maybe we should think about doing that sooner not later rather than trying to invent some anti-wraparound solution here. In principle, you could support existing TOAST tables and pointers containing 4-byte IDs in parallel with the new ones. Not sure how pg_upgrade would handle it exactly though. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: