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
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 |