| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |
| Date: | 2019-02-27 22:44:30 |
| Message-ID: | 729f7d3d-2c6f-6809-398e-b343075687ae@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-02-27 22:50, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> However, the continuous
> integration stuff has created an expectation that your patch shouldn't
> be left to bitrot for long. Silly mechanical bitrot now seems like a
> much bigger problem than it was before these developments. It unfairly
> puts reviewers off engaging.
If this is the problem (although I think we'd find that OID collisions
are rather rare compared to other gratuitous cfbot failures), why not
have the cfbot build with a flag that ignores OID collisions?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-02-27 22:44:32 | Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-02-27 22:38:58 | Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |