Re: Re: [SQL] maximum number of rows in table - what about oid limits? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tim Barnard
Subject Re: Re: [SQL] maximum number of rows in table - what about oid limits?
Date
Msg-id 006701c0f37b$c221dce0$a519af3f@hartcomm.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [SQL] maximum number of rows in table - what about oid limits?  (John Scott <jmscott@yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-general
<snip>
so, i guess my question still stands ... what happens when oids wrap?
<snip>

Answer: Very little. Just remember 2 things if you expect OIDs to wrap
              in your application:

  1. Don't key off of them. Use a sequence of your own.
  2. Watch for creations and insertions to fail due to duplicate
      OIDs. When the failure is due to a duplicate, simply retry
      the operation again.

Tim

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Scott" <jmscott@yahoo.com>
To: "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>
Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>; <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 11:45 AM
Subject: [GENERAL] Re: [SQL] maximum number of rows in table - what about
oid limits?


> well i wasn't interested in using oids in my application.
> i was curious about the relationship oids
> and the tuple/row limit.
>
> i guess if what you say is true, the oids are NOT used internally
> by postgres.  this seems odd.
>
> so, i guess my question still stands ... what happens when oids wrap?
> are oids nothing more than a sequence with an index,
> not used at all internally?
>
> i
> --- Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6 Jun 2001, jmscott@REMOVEMEyahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > postgresql docs claim an essentially unlimited number of
> > > rows per table.
> > >
> > >    http://postgresql.crimelabs.net/users-lounge/limitations.html
> > >
> > > this doesn't make sense if each row has an oid.
> > > do more subtle side effects exist if the oid wraps?
> >
> > In general, unless you're relying on unique oids, you should be fine.
> > You probably don't want to use oid as a unique key in your tables for
that
> > reason. Of course, sequences aren't sufficient either (also being
> > int4) but some kind of int8 "sequence" mechanism would do it if you
expect
> > more than the int4 number of rows.
> >
> > You might have problems with creating system table entries with unique
> > oids after wraparound, but generally that can be fixed by trying again.
> > (Some of the system tables have a unique index on oid).
> >
>
>
> =====
> John Scott (john@august.com)
> Senior Partner
> August Associates
>
> email: john@august.com
>   web: http://www.august.com/~jmscott
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Fred J"
Date:
Subject: postgres runaway process
Next
From: lobet_romuald@my-deja.com (Romuald Lobet)
Date:
Subject: Re: What CASE tools and clients for Postgres?