On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> I'm not sure that's a way we really want to go down. How do we define which
>> third party vendors would get to reserve oids? And how many? And under what
>> other potential terms?
>> Seems like we'd set ourselves up for endless discussions and bike
> Not really. I'm only proposing that it would be nice to have a block
> of OIDs that core agrees not to assign for any other purpose, not that
> we dole out specific ones to specific companies. There's no reason
Ah, ok. In that case I agree, that wouldn't be open for a lot of bikeshedding.
> why, for example, EnterpriseDB's fork can't use OIDs from the same
> reserved block as PostgreSQL-XC's fork or Greenplum's fork or Aster
> Data's fork - those are all distinct projects. All might need private
> OIDs but they can all come from the same range because the code bases
> don't mingle.
> That having been said, we've gotten this far without having any
> terrible trouble about this, so maybe it's not worth worrying about.
> It's a nice-to-have, not a big deal.
Yeah, there's got to be a whole lot of other very much more
complicated things you have to do with each new major version :)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2012-09-27 20:18:45|
|Subject: Re: data to json enhancements|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2012-09-27 20:06:56|
|Subject: Re: autovacuum stress-testing our system|