Is a high tab_reloid worrying?
I just added a new table to a slony relication set. The new table seems
to have a really high tab_reloid value of 94,198,669
I'm using Slon 1.1.5 with pg 7.4.6 and 7.4.11 on unix
On the master I see (wcprogallery is the new table added to set 4)
tab_id|tab_reloid|tab_relname |tab_nspname|tab_set|tab_idxname
-------+----------+------------+-----------+-------+-------------------
4005| 18284|wccustomer |customer | 4|wccustomer_pkey
...
4035| 18858|wcrecommend |customer | 4|wcrecommend_pkey
4036| 94198669|wcprogallery|customer | 4|wcprogallery_pkey
On the slave I see
tab_id|tab_reloid|tab_relname |tab_nspname|tab_set|tab_idxname
-------+----------+------------+-----------+-------+-------------------
4005| 1671239|wccustomer |customer | 4|wccustomer_pkey
...
4035| 1671608|wcrecommend |customer | 4|wcrecommend_pkey
4036| 5741203|wcprogallery|customer | 4|wcprogallery_pkey
Is this something I should be worried about? Can I find out where all
the intermediate OIDs have gone?
I have around 70 tables and about 200 pgplsql functions in the database.
John
Ühel kenal päeval, N, 2006-04-13 kell 10:06, kirjutas John
Sidney-Woollett:
I just added a new table to a slony relication set. The new table seems
to have a really high tab_reloid value of 94,198,669
...
Is this something I should be worried about? Can I find out where all
the intermediate OIDs have gone?
probably to data rows, unless you have all your tables defined using
WITHOUT OID. OIDs are assigned from a global "sequence".
--------
Hannu
My tables are defined "WITHOUT OID" - does that make a difference?
John
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Show quoted text
Ühel kenal päeval, N, 2006-04-13 kell 10:06, kirjutas John
Sidney-Woollett:I just added a new table to a slony relication set. The new table seems
to have a really high tab_reloid value of 94,198,669...
Is this something I should be worried about? Can I find out where all
the intermediate OIDs have gone?probably to data rows, unless you have all your tables defined using
WITHOUT OID. OIDs are assigned from a global "sequence".--------
Hannu---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, johnsw@wardbrook.com (John Sidney-Woollett) transmitted:
I just added a new table to a slony relication set. The new table
seems to have a really high tab_reloid value of 94,198,669
I presume the database instance has been around for a while? If so,
then I wouldn't worry too much.
I'm not certain comprehensively what would consume OIDs, but I expect
temp tables would, so if you have applications that generate them,
that would naturally lead to increases in OID values.
The only time you get *low* values is if you define tables immediately
after creating the database.
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "gmail.com")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/slony.html
As of next Tuesday, all terminal input will be line-at-a-time.
Please update your programs.
Thanks for the reassurance. You're right the db has been around for a while.
Doea anyone know if OIDs for data and system (DDL) objects from the same
number generator?
John
Christopher Browne wrote:
Show quoted text
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, johnsw@wardbrook.com (John Sidney-Woollett) transmitted:
I just added a new table to a slony relication set. The new table
seems to have a really high tab_reloid value of 94,198,669I presume the database instance has been around for a while? If so,
then I wouldn't worry too much.I'm not certain comprehensively what would consume OIDs, but I expect
temp tables would, so if you have applications that generate them,
that would naturally lead to increases in OID values.The only time you get *low* values is if you define tables immediately
after creating the database.
On 4/13/2006 6:19 AM, John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
My tables are defined "WITHOUT OID" - does that make a difference?
That's good so far.
The other thing that is eating OID's are temporary objects. I personally
consider the implementation of temp tables broken for precisely that
matter. If your application uses temp tables, sooner or later it will
cause an OID counter wrap around and then you run the risk of random
transaction failures due to duplicate key errors on CREATE TEMP TABLE.
Jan
John
Hannu Krosing wrote:> �hel kenal p�eval, N, 2006-04-13 kell 10:06, kirjutas John> Sidney-Woollett:> >>I just added a new table to a slony relication set. The new table seems >>to have a really high tab_reloid value of 94,198,669> > ...> >>Is this something I should be worried about? Can I find out where all >>the intermediate OIDs have gone?> > > probably to data rows, unless you have all your tables defined using> WITHOUT OID. OIDs are assigned from a global "sequence".> > --------> Hannu> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?> > http://archives.postgresql.org_______________________________________________Slony1-general mailing listSlony1-general@gborg.postgresql.orghttp://gborg.postgresql.org/mailman/listinfo/slony1-general
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
The other thing that is eating OID's are temporary objects. I personally
consider the implementation of temp tables broken for precisely that
matter. If your application uses temp tables, sooner or later it will
cause an OID counter wrap around and then you run the risk of random
transaction failures due to duplicate key errors on CREATE TEMP TABLE.
Not as of 8.1.
regards, tom lane