From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Dunstan <tom(at)tomd(dot)cc> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: OID conflicts |
Date: | 2006-09-18 21:20:11 |
Message-ID: | 20060918212011.GK8796@svana.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:09:52PM +0100, Tom Dunstan wrote:
> Hmm. A simpler way lessen the pain might be to have a script which could
> update OIDs in your catalog files. You'd have to run it BEFORE doing a
> merge. Ie, suppose I've allocated 2978-2991 in my patch, but since then
> OIDs have been allocated up to and including 2980. The way to tell that
<snip>
Seems awfully complicated. The numbers don't mean anything, they don't
have to be contiguous. If you want to reduce the chance of conflict,
find a nice big block in unused_oids, add a random number between 0 and
100 and use that. Or squeeze yourself into a block that exactly fits
what you need. There's simply not that many patches that need numbers
to worry about anything complicated.
When I needed a few dozen OIDs for an (unapplied) patch I simply picked
2900 and went up from there. That was a while ago and there's no
conflict yet.
Have anice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Dunstan | 2006-09-18 21:25:31 | Re: An Idea for OID conflicts |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-09-18 21:17:50 | Re: [HACKERS] Patch for UUID datatype (beta) |