| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| 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: | 2019-02-27 21:59:17 |
| Message-ID: | 12776.1551304757@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> We do need a couple of pieces of new infrastructure to make this idea
> conveniently workable. One is a tool to allow automatic OID renumbering
> instead of having to do it by hand; Naylor has a draft for that upthread.
Oh: arguably, something else we'd need to do to ensure that OID
renumbering is trouble-free is to institute a strict rule that OID
references in the *.dat files must be symbolic. We had not bothered
to convert every single reference type before, reasoning that some
of them were too little-used to be worth the trouble; but someday
that'll rise up to bite us, if semi-automated renumbering becomes
a thing.
It looks to me like the following OID columns remain unconverted:
pg_class.reltype
pg_database.dattablespace
pg_ts_config.cfgparser
pg_ts_config_map.mapcfg, mapdict
pg_ts_dict.dicttemplate
pg_type.typcollation
pg_type.typrelid
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-27 22:09:42 | Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-02-27 21:50:35 | Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |