Re: Allowing extensions to find out the OIDs of their member objects

Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom> A larger issue is whether "hand out some OIDs on-demand" is a
> Tom> sustainable strategy.

> No.

> Not for any concerns over availability of oids, but simply from the fact
> that we have no business whatsoever inserting ourselves into the
> extension development process in this way.

I'm not exactly following this concern. I wasn't imagining that we'd
assign each individual OID ourselves, but rather give out blocks of OIDs.
Admittedly, the blocks can't be huge, but it doesn't seem to me that
this'd create an impossible burden for either us or extension developers.

We could also reserve some range of OIDs for "local extensions", whereby
people who didn't intend to publish their extensions for widespread use
could just use some of those OIDs rather than having to ask for a
public assignment.

regards, tom lane