| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: The unused_oids script should have a reminder to use the 8000-8999 OID range |
| Date: | 2019-08-06 16:35:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20190806163535.GA7322@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Aug-06, Tom Lane wrote:
> My estimate is that in any one development
> cycle we'll commit order-of-a-couple-dozen patches that consume new OIDs.
> In that context you'd be just unlucky to get an OID suggestion that
> doesn't have dozens to hundreds of free OIDs after it. (If the rate
> of manually-assigned-OID consumption were any faster than that, we'd
> have filled up the 1-10K space long since.)
If we ever get to a point where this is a real problem in one cycle, we
can just run the renumber_oids script before the end of the cycle.
So IMO what we have now is more than sufficient for the time being.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Larry Rosenman | 2019-08-06 17:06:45 | How am I supposed to fix this? |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2019-08-06 16:10:08 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |