| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql-server/src/include/catalog pg_proc.h |
| Date: | 2002-08-21 03:25:21 |
| Message-ID: | 16742.1029900321@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> No - that was for my pg_stat_reset patch, and at the time of submission it
> didn't conflict with any other oids...
Yeah, things are moving so quickly now that patches which add catalog
items may easily hit each other in transit. The best short-term
solution seems to be to expect committers to run 'duplicate_oids' before
committing anything that adds catalog entries.
In the long run we might want to think about reassigning the
hand-assigned OIDs in some more-rational fashion; the current OID layout
is a complete mess with no visible rhyme or reason...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian - CVS | 2002-08-21 05:25:50 | pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml func.sgml |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2002-08-21 01:50:23 | Re: pgsql-server/src/include/catalog pg_proc.h |