Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?

From: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
Date: 2019-02-23 08:13:21
Message-ID: CACPNZCsxOVsg6=U5pz3xNKX8G=Q-6AT=i2Fp=37KwCL_FdxT_Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:

> Along those lines, here's a draft patch to do just that. It handles
> array type oids as well. Run it like this:
>
> perl reformat_dat_file.pl --map-from 9000 --map-to 2000 *.dat
>
> There is some attempt at documentation. So far it doesn't map by
> default, but that could be changed if we agreed on the convention of
> 9000 or whatever.

In case we don't want to lose track of this, I added it to the March
commitfest with a target of v13. (I didn't see a way to add it to the
July commitfest)

--
John Naylor https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Surafel Temesgen 2019-02-23 08:37:58 Re: Add --include-table-data-where option to pg_dump, to export only a subset of table data
Previous Message John Naylor 2019-02-23 08:01:11 Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables