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: 2019-02-11 11:44:39
Message-ID: CACPNZCv5BRuF-_SG7ZKWDZ1VmkdPGO9oqohNF=RZixUajDfdFQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2/8/19, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> A script such as you suggest might be a good way to reduce the temptation
> to get lazy at the last minute. Now that the catalog data is pretty
> machine-readable, I suspect it wouldn't be very hard --- though I'm
> not volunteering either. I'm envisioning something simple like "renumber
> all OIDs in range mmmm-nnnn into range xxxx-yyyy", perhaps with the
> ability to skip any already-used OIDs in the target range.

This might be something that can be done inside reformat_dat_files.pl.
It's a little outside it's scope, but better than the alternatives.
And we already have a function in Catalog.pm to get the currently used
oids. I'll volunteer to look into it but I don't know when that will
be.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Sharma 2019-02-11 12:20:42 Re: ON SELECT rule on a table without columns
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-02-11 11:07:03 Re: [HACKERS] Unportable implementation of background worker start