Re: Replacing pg_depend PIN entries with a fixed range check

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2021-04-15 19:59:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.

IIRC, the docs suggest that in an emergency you could recreate either
of them from the other. Admittedly, if you've put stuff in template1
then this might cause problems later, but I think relatively few
people do that.

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

We had these exceptions already, they were just implemented in initdb
rather than the backend.

regards, tom lane