From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Add parallelism and glibc dependent only options to reindexdb
In-reply-to: <20190728163418.bolniw34m7u3dhio@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <27884.1563811033@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190722170532.GA26019@alvherre.pgsql> <20190728072813.GB2029@paquier.xyz>
 <25197.1564322847@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190728163418.bolniw34m7u3dhio@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Sun, 28 Jul 2019 09:34:18 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <9494.1564332179.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2019 12:42:59 -0400
Message-ID: <9495.1564332179@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-07-28 10:07:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> In the long run, might we ever switch to 64-bit OIDs?  I dunno.

> Depends on the the table, I'd say. Having toast tables have 64bit ids,
> and not advance the oid counter, would be quite the advantage over the
> current situation. Toasting performance craters once the oid counter has
> wrapped. But obviously there are upgrade problems there - presumably
> we'd need 'narrow" and 'wide' toast tables, or such.

Yeah, but I'd be inclined to fix toast tables as a special case,
rather than widening OIDs in general.  We could define the chunk
number as being int8 not OID for the "wide" style.

			regards, tom lane