MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFCRh--J4F0hFm_+x4rwW5eLEZnz_fNcp05Q1whO4YoKnQgJpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANzqJaC40fS+bHNbPVjmSbRwdNHs8ZbxPUbDrJeC2hFyB9z0FQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANzqJaC40fS+bHNbPVjmSbRwdNHs8ZbxPUbDrJeC2hFyB9z0FQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 14:59:51 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFCRh-931skmWJtK7m09jVUAV4aEFDFndaCC_d8HBQCoNmtHoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Test cluster with high OIDs above the signed-int limit (2B+)
To: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFCRh-931skmWJtK7m09jVUAV4aEFDFndaCC_d8HBQCoNmtHoQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 2:45=E2=80=AFPM Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 5:45=E2=80=AFAM Dominique Devienne <ddevienne@gma=
il.com> wrote:
>> Hi. A few weeks ago, one of our clusters, with high DDL churn from
>> UTs, crossed the 2B mark for OIDs, which exposed a bug in our code.
>
> Because you track and remember OIDs?

No. I don't even remember the exact bug, and we lost networking to our
SCM right now, so can't even look it up (obviously it's not
decentralized SCM). But signed vs unsigned and 2B+ is a classic bug,
worth testing for, except it's impractical to reach such high OIDs on
demand. Given there's a cluster-wide OID counter, surely there's a
way, even hackish, to influence that counter, no? PostgreSQL itself
has mitigation strategies when running out of OIDs, doesn't it? It's a
different use-case, but that implies also reaching large OIDs, and I
suspect this is unit tested, no?