On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 1:59 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> One solution to all this is to do as Dilip proposes here: for system
> relations, keep assigning the OID as the initial relfilenumber.
> Actually, we really only need to do this for pg_largeobject; all the
> other relfilenumber values could be assigned from a counter, as long
> as they're assigned from a range distinct from what we use for user
> relations.
>
> But I don't really like that, because I feel like the whole thing
> where we start out with relfilenumber=oid is a recipe for hidden bugs.
> I believe we'd be better off if we decouple those concepts more
> thoroughly. So here's another idea: what if we set the
> next-relfilenumber counter for the new cluster to the value from the
> old cluster, and then rewrote all the (thus-far-empty) system tables?
You mean in a new cluster start the next-relfilenumber counter from
the highest relfilenode/Oid value in the old cluster right?. Yeah, if
we start next-relfilenumber after the range of the old cluster then we
can also avoid the logic of SetNextRelFileNumber() during upgrade.
My very initial idea around this was to start the next-relfilenumber
directly from the 4 billion in the new cluster so there can not be any
conflict and we don't even need to identify the highest value of used
relfilenode in the old cluster. In fact we don't need to rewrite the
system table before upgrading I think. So what do we lose with this?
just 4 billion relfilenode? does that really matter provided the range
we get with the 56 bits relfilenumber.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
