Horton

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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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: 2021-08-24T17:23:49Z
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.

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:04 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

I think you might be overlooking the emails from Stephen and I where
we suggested how that could be made to work?

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com