Re: Replacing pg_depend PIN entries with a fixed range check

Hi,

On 2021-04-15 19:59:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Hm, maybe we ought to swap template0 and template1 instead? I.e. have
> > template0 be in pg_database.dat and thus get a pinned oid, and then
> > create template1, postgres etc from that?
>
> No, *neither* of them are pinned, and we don't want them to be.
> It's something of a historical artifact that template1 has a low OID.

Hm, it makes sense for template1 not to be pinned, but it doesn't seem
as obvious why that should be the case for template0.

> In short, I'm really skeptical of changing any of these pin-or-not
> decisions to save one or two comparisons in IsPinnedObject. That
> function is already orders of magnitude faster than what it replaces;
> we don't need to sweat over making it faster yet.

I'm not at all concerned about the speed after the change - it just
seems cleaner and easier to understand not to have exceptions.

Greetings,

Andres Freund