Re: Oid registry

On 09/25/2012 10:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Given your previous comments, perhaps we could just start handing out
>> Oids (if there is any demand) numbered, say, 9000 and up. That should
>> keep us well clear of any existing use.
> No, I think you missed my point entirely: handing out OIDs at the top
> of the manual assignment range is approximately the worst possible
> scenario. I foresee having to someday move FirstBootstrapObjectId
> down to 9000, or 8000, or even less, to cope with growth of the
> auto-assigned OID set. So we need to keep manually assigned OIDs
> reasonably compact near the bottom of the range, and it doesn't matter
> at all whether such OIDs are used internally or reserved for external
> developers. Nor do I see a need for such reserved OIDs to "look
> different" from internally-used OIDs. Reserved is reserved.
>
>

OK, point taken.

cheers

andrew