| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |
| Date: | 2019-02-08 18:35:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznAbZfNm+G3A7VzOnbQMMRU0Rxs-Y-S4uEH9ntyo5akAA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:29 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Um. That would not be just an add-on script but something that
> genbki.pl would have to accept. I'm not excited about that; it would
> complicate what's already complex, and if it works enough for test
> purposes then it wouldn't really stop a committer who wasn't paying
> attention from committing the patch un-revised.
>
> To the extent that this works at all, OIDs in the 9000 range ought
> to be enough of a flag already, I think.
I tend to agree that this isn't enough of a problem to justify making
genbki.pl significantly more complicated.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2019-02-08 18:50:51 | Re: ON SELECT rule on a table without columns |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-08 18:29:20 | Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |