Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
Date: 2019-02-27 21:59:17
Message-ID: 12776.1551304757@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> We do need a couple of pieces of new infrastructure to make this idea
> conveniently workable. One is a tool to allow automatic OID renumbering
> instead of having to do it by hand; Naylor has a draft for that upthread.

Oh: arguably, something else we'd need to do to ensure that OID
renumbering is trouble-free is to institute a strict rule that OID
references in the *.dat files must be symbolic. We had not bothered
to convert every single reference type before, reasoning that some
of them were too little-used to be worth the trouble; but someday
that'll rise up to bite us, if semi-automated renumbering becomes
a thing.

It looks to me like the following OID columns remain unconverted:

pg_class.reltype
pg_database.dattablespace
pg_ts_config.cfgparser
pg_ts_config_map.mapcfg, mapdict
pg_ts_dict.dicttemplate
pg_type.typcollation
pg_type.typrelid

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-02-27 22:09:42 Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2019-02-27 21:50:35 Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?