| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: The unused_oids script should have a reminder to use the 8000-8999 OID range |
| Date: | 2019-08-02 20:49:33 |
| Message-ID: | 26966.1564778973@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> I've taken your patch, and changed the wording a bit. I think that
> it's worth being a bit more explicit. The attached revision produces
> output that looks like this:
> Patches should use a more-or-less consecutive range of OIDs.
> Best practice is to make a random choice in the range 8000-9999.
> Suggested random unused OID: 9099
Maybe s/make a/start with/ ?
Also, once people start doing this, it'd be unfriendly to suggest
9099 if 9100 is already committed. There should be some attention
to *how many* consecutive free OIDs will be available if one starts
at the suggestion. You could perhaps print "9099 (42 OIDs available
starting here)", and if the user doesn't like the amount of headroom
in that, they could just run it again for a different suggestion.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ibrar Ahmed | 2019-08-02 21:00:22 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types |
| Previous Message | Ibrar Ahmed | 2019-08-02 20:48:31 | Re: SQL:2011 PERIODS vs Postgres Ranges? |