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

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 18:19:41
Message-ID: CAH2-WznEjtgrHrWWZ_NqaSspL+Dfi2O7NJj8TZUNmJqHrKXrXg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:14 AM 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.

I imagined that the machine-readable catalog data would allow us to
assign non-numeric identifiers to this OID range. Perhaps there'd be a
textual symbol with a number in the range of 0-20 at the end. Those
would stick out like a sore thumb, making it highly unlikely that
anybody would forget about it at the last minute.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brandur Leach 2019-02-08 18:19:57 Re: Patch for SortSupport implementation on inet/cdir
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-02-08 18:14:15 Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?