| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Brandur Leach <brandur(at)mutelight(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] SortSupport for macaddr type |
| Date: | 2017-03-02 11:08:47 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYsO65uHCFW2yiRiqXn7_J+8daAQKJEYgpsLJgkWZ7S_A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Brandur Leach <brandur(at)mutelight(dot)org> wrote:
> * I've been generating a new OID value with the
> `unused_oids` script, but pretty much every time I rebase
> I collide with someone else's addition and need to find a
> new one. Is it better for me to pick an OID in an exotic
> range for my final patch, or that a committer just finds
> a new one (if necessary) as they're putting it into
> master?
It's nice if you can do it before the committer gets to it, but if it
ends up conflicting I personally don't find fixing it to be a big
deal.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Maksim Milyutin | 2017-03-02 11:09:24 | Re: Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-03-02 10:50:15 | Re: [pgsql-www] Small issue in online devel documentation build |