| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 22:57:56 |
| Message-ID: | 14223.1551308276@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:44 PM Peter Eisentraut
> <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> If this is the problem (although I think we'd find that OID collisions
>> are rather rare compared to other gratuitous cfbot failures), why not
>> have the cfbot build with a flag that ignores OID collisions?
> How would that work?
It could work for conflicting OIDs in different system catalogs (so that
the "conflict" is an artifact of our assignment rules rather than an
intrinsic problem). But I think the majority of new hand-assigned OIDs
are in pg_proc, so that this kind of hack would not help as much as one
might wish.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2019-02-27 23:03:19 | Re: Row Level Security − leakproof-ness and performance implications |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-02-27 22:45:14 | Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |