From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Release notes on "reserved OIDs" |
Date: | 2019-09-04 09:40:55 |
Message-ID: | 20190904094055.og3vq27tj7we7x4n@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Hi,
On 2019-08-30 12:35:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Hmm. I wonder if this item really belongs in the release notes at all.
> > My view is that this was interim policy, not necessarily a permanent
> > thing; and it's oriented strictly towards PG developers rather than end
> > users or even fork-developers.
>
> I think it's the sort of thing that we sometimes cover in the
> "source code" changes of the release notes. But yeah, 09568ec3d's
> idea was pretty much fully superseded by a6417078c, so if we're
> going to document anything it should be the latter not the former.
Hm - not sure I see how a6417078c supersedes 09568ec3d, on the rationale
that we'd discussed in the thread, which the commit message sums up as:
Add a note suggesting that oids in forks should be assigned in the
9000-9999 range.
As forks != extensions, the release note entry seems misleading, and
a6417078c doesn't seem relevant?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-09-04 09:43:15 | Re: Release notes on "reserved OIDs" |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-09-03 13:54:29 | Re: Syntax incorrect for psql 9.6 |