From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-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: | 2019-08-06 05:58:26 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmN8JJZSBrqXT=yVSbcfe2yW42TNZQ8fd5KtV8bT0qUGw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 10:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> There was some discussion of that upthread, and Peter argued that many
> patches only need one OID anyway so why try harder. I'm not totally
> sure I buy that --- my sense is that even simple patches tend to add
> several related functions not just one.
That has been my experience, but it turns out that that was colored by
the areas that I work in. I reviewed the history of pg_proc.dat today,
and found that adding multiple entries at a time is more common that I
thought it was.
> But as long as the script
> tells you how many OIDs are available, what's the problem? Just run
> it again if you want a different suggestion, or make your own choice.
Right. Besides, adding something along the lines Michael described
necessitates fixing the problems that it creates. We'll run out of
blocks of 5 contiguous OIDs (or whatever) far sooner than we'll run
out of single OIDs. Now we have to worry about doing a second
(actually a third) pass over the OIDs as a fallback when that happens.
And so on.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-08-06 06:06:56 | Re: Recent failures in IsolationCheck deadlock-hard |
Previous Message | Ian Barwick | 2019-08-06 05:53:10 | Re: [PATCH] Stop ALTER SYSTEM from making bad assumptions |