Horton

Re: preserving db/ts/relfilenode OIDs across pg_upgrade (was Re: storing an explicit nonce)

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Shruthi Gowda <gowdashru@gmail.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2021-08-24T16:04:00Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Rethink method for assigning OIDs to the template0 and postgres DBs.

  2. pg_upgrade: Preserve database OIDs.

  3. pg_upgrade: Preserve relfilenodes and tablespace OIDs.

  4. Fix for new Boolean node

  5. Improve error handling of HMAC computations

  6. Add macro RelationIsPermanent() to report relation permanence

  7. Enhance nbtree index tuple deletion.

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:29 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> I assume this patch is not going to be applied until there is an actual
>> use case for preserving these values.

> ...

> That being said, if you or somebody else thinks that this is a bad
> idea or that the reasons offered up until now are insufficient, feel
> free to make that argument. I just work here...

Per upthread discussion, it seems impractical to fully guarantee
that database OIDs match, which seems to mean that the whole premise
collapses.  Like Bruce, I want to see a plausible use case justifying
any partial-guarantee scenario before we add more complication (= bugs)
to pg_upgrade.

			regards, tom lane