| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | 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: | 2019-02-08 18:19:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznEjtgrHrWWZ_NqaSspL+Dfi2O7NJj8TZUNmJqHrKXrXg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> A script such as you suggest might be a good way to reduce the temptation
> to get lazy at the last minute. Now that the catalog data is pretty
> machine-readable, I suspect it wouldn't be very hard --- though I'm
> not volunteering either. I'm envisioning something simple like "renumber
> all OIDs in range mmmm-nnnn into range xxxx-yyyy", perhaps with the
> ability to skip any already-used OIDs in the target range.
I imagined that the machine-readable catalog data would allow us to
assign non-numeric identifiers to this OID range. Perhaps there'd be a
textual symbol with a number in the range of 0-20 at the end. Those
would stick out like a sore thumb, making it highly unlikely that
anybody would forget about it at the last minute.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brandur Leach | 2019-02-08 18:19:57 | Re: Patch for SortSupport implementation on inet/cdir |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-08 18:14:15 | Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |