From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pg(at)bowt(dot)ie, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: an OID >= 8000 in master |
Date: | 2019-11-21 04:45:21 |
Message-ID: | 14504.1574311521@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> At Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:10:09 -0800, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote in
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:07 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>>> Yep, agreed. This looks like an oversight. Peter?
>> It's not an oversight. See the commit message of a6417078, and the
>> additions that were made to the RELEASE_CHANGES file.
Yes, the idea is that picking random OIDs in the 8000-9999 range is
less likely to cause conflicts between patches than our old habits.
> I thought that commits don't use the development OIDs and thought that
> we won't have conflict perfectly.
I do not think there is any easy solution that guarantees that.
We could imagine having some sort of pre-registration mechanism,
maybe, but it seems like more trouble than benefit.
> 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.
-1, that pretty much destroys the point of the unused_oids script.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Smith, Peter | 2019-11-21 04:50:22 | RE: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-11-21 04:44:18 | Re: an OID >= 8000 in master |