Re: an OID >= 8000 in master

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: an OID >= 8000 in master
Date: 2019-11-21 04:44:18
Message-ID: CAH2-WzkWT03g9yGdJYu_3yoqxmm9i3ya-VxOGcU6h_Vzfmfr0A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 8:33 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> So, still any ongoing patch can stamp on another when it is committed
> by certain probability (even if it's rather low)). And consecutive
> high-OID "hole"s are going to be shortened and decrease throgh a year.

Right.

> By the way even if we work this way, developers tend to pick up low
> range OIDs since it is printed at the beginning of the output. I think
> we should hide the whole list of unused oids defaultly and just
> suggest random one.

It is still within the discretion of committers to use the
non-reserved/development OID ranges directly. For example, a committer
may prefer to use an OID that is close to the OIDs already used for a
set of related objects, if the related objects are already in a stable
release. (I'm not sure that it's really worth doing that, but that's
what the policy is.)

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-11-21 04:45:21 Re: an OID >= 8000 in master
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2019-11-21 04:33:48 Re: an OID >= 8000 in master