| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | RekGRpth <rekgrpth(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] RFC: new_oid_hook, to let an extension propose catalog OIDs |
| Date: | 2026-11-11 08:32:16 |
| Message-ID: | 0D4C8CB9-CB50-496D-AEDC-58B690E47403@yesql.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 31 Oct 2026, at 01:42, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 01:25:03PM +0500, RekGRpth wrote:
>> - Is a hook here acceptable at all, or would you rather extend the
>> binary-upgrade mechanism ("the next OID for this catalog is X") to
>> normal operation?
>
> I don't like the idea of a hook for that.
Having worked on Greenplum I would argue that a hook is inadequate for solving
this problem. I would not be against offering infrastructure or scaffolding
for managing shared nothing clusters (assuming it can be done well) but it
would need to take a much bigger picture into consideration.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | shveta malik | 2026-11-11 08:51:29 | Re: Crashes on a partition whose concurrent detach never finished |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2026-11-11 08:26:51 | Re: [PATCH] pg_input_is_valid() reuses the first type name inside a PL/pgSQL loop |