Subject: Re: DISABLE TRIGGER doc wrong?

From: Dominique Devienne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 09:01:32 +0200

On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 7:33 PM Adrian Klaver <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On 8/25/25 10:24, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 7:13 PM Pavel Luzanov <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >> On 25.08.2025 19:19, Dominique Devienne wrote:
> >> Simple experiment shows that it is still up to date:

Thanks Pavel. Indeed. See below.

> I am not seeing it:

Thanks Adrian. Indeed, it was my mistake.

I thought the 4 tables we had USER triggers on also had FKs, but I was mistaken.

I just tried on the 5th (and last) one we're adding triggers on, which
does have an FK, and I do get the documented (and verified by you
guys) error:

ERROR:  permission denied: "RI_ConstraintTrigger_c_1226298044" is a
system trigger

(yes, that's a large OID... For a 1 year old DB)

I apologize for wasting your time. Thanks, --DD

---

From: Ron Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 08:53:37 -0400

On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 3:01 AM Dominique Devienne <[email-masked]>
wrote:
[snip]

> (yes, that's a large OID... For a 1 year old DB)

PG's OID allocation of "user-land" OIDs doesn't start at 16384 anymore.
And it can seem quite random to someone who doesn't dig into the source
code.  For example, a couple of years ago, I installed PG14 on 5
newly-built servers.  The OIDs of the ten databases I created on them were:

Srv 1: 19762693,  544452602
Srv 2:  1002727,   11988067
Srv 3:    16388,  509694991
Srv 4:    16387, 1805148571
Srv 5:    16388, 3046645364

(Too bad Postgresql doesn't have CREATED_ON timestamp, CREATED_BY oid,
MODIFIED_ON timestamp and MODIFIED_BY oid fields in pg_database and
pg_class,to verify whether my memory is correct.  The counter-argument when
I requested such fields was "pg_dump/pg_upgrade creates new objects, so
it's not _really_ when they were created" and "you don't _really_ need
those fields".)

-- 
Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce.
Don't boil me, I'm still alive.
<Redacted> lobster!

---

From: Dominique Devienne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 15:01:16 +0200

On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 2:54 PM Ron Johnson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 3:01 AM Dominique Devienne <[email-masked]> wrote:

This is a 17 cluster. So not even 1 year old then.
So getting to 1.2B OIDs in 10 months,
doesn't bode well for the longevity of that cluster.
But we're getting OT here.
This is not a "production" server, lots of CIs and manual testing there.