Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?
Date: 2019-09-10 00:13:25
Message-ID: 25400.1568074405@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 5:04 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Adding to CF.

> Rebased. An OID clashed so re-roll the dice. Also spotted a typo.

FWIW, I'd move *all* the OIDs added by this patch up to >= 8000.
I don't feel a strong need to fill in the gaps in the low-numbered
OIDs, and people who do try that are likely to hit problems of the
sort you just did.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikita Glukhov 2019-09-10 01:30:41 Re: [PATCH] Opclass parameters
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2019-09-10 00:05:20 Re: Should we add xid_current() or a int8->xid cast?