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

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 22:45:14
Message-ID: CAH2-WzkC0nV+-2h+yQXSfRGoxr0D1c+eNTS2qKD6gapV0NFnFA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:44 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?

How would that work?

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-02-27 22:57:56 Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2019-02-27 22:44:32 Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?