Re: automatically assigning catalog toast oids

On 12/9/18, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Another thing I seriously dislike is that this allows people to omit OIDs
> from .dat entries in catalogs where we traditionally hand-assign OIDs.
> That's not a good idea because it would mean those entries don't have
> stable OIDs, whereas the whole point of hand assignment is to ensure
> all built-in objects of a particular type have stable OIDs. Now, you
> could argue about the usefulness of that policy for any given catalog;
> but if we decide that catalog X doesn't need stable OIDs then that should
> be an intentional policy change, not something that can happen because
> one lazy hacker didn't follow the policy.

On this point, I believe this could have happened anyway. pg_opclass
has a mix of hand- and initdb-assigned oids, and there was nothing
previously to stop that from creeping into any other catalog, as far
as I can tell.

-John Naylor