Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
Date: 2019-02-09 09:10:52
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYYrBDqNL528+ZrXvs0ro+ucAoGg1hX_sCpD__+fkxyAg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 11:59 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> To the extent that this works at all, OIDs in the 9000 range ought
> to be enough of a flag already, I think.

A "flag" that isn't documented anywhere outside of a mailing list
discussion and that isn't checked by any code anywhere is not much of
a flag, IMHO.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2019-02-09 10:21:12 Re: dsa_allocate() faliure
Previous Message Tom Lane 2019-02-09 07:26:00 Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)