Re: pg_upgrade - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: pg_upgrade
Date
Msg-id 201009282000.o8SK0Pk02030@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade  (Brian Hirt <bhirt@me.com>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: pg_upgrade  (Brian Hirt <bhirt@me.com>)
List pgsql-general
Brian Hirt wrote:
> Looks like pg_upgrade is using 32bit oids.  2147483647 is the max signed 32 bit int, but the oids for my tables are
clearlylarger than that.  
>
> == output from pg_upgrade ==
> Database: basement84_dev
> relname: mit.company: reloid: 2147483647 reltblspace:
> relname: mit.company_history: reloid: 2147483647 reltblspace:
>
> == output from catalog query ==
> basement84_dev=# select c.oid,c.relname from pg_catalog.pg_namespace n, pg_catalog.pg_class c where n.oid =
c.relnamespaceand n.nspname = 'mit'; 
>     oid     |      relname
> ------------+--------------------
>  3000767630 | company
>  3000767633 | company_history
> (22 rows)
>

Interesting.  Odd it would report the max 32-bit signed int.  I wonder
if it somehow is getting set to -1.  I looked briefly at the pg_upgrade
code and it appears to put all oids in unsigned ints.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Chris Barnes
Date:
Subject: Autovacuum settings between systems
Next
From: Tim Uckun
Date:
Subject: Re: Killing "stuck" queries and preventing queries from getting "stuck"