From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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: | 2019-08-02 19:51:12 |
Message-ID: | CAOBaU_bZJFSBzgiR5OsU5sWdTV1vt1h4tYUDFxcZXkGZ4yA1UQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le ven. 2 août 2019 à 20:12, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:42 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Trivial patch for that attached.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > The output is now like:
> >
> > [...]
> > Using an oid in the 8000-9999 range is recommended.
> > For instance: 9427
> >
> > (checking that the suggested random oid is not used yet.)
>
> I've taken your patch, and changed the wording a bit. I think that
> it's worth being a bit more explicit. The attached revision produces
> output that looks like this:
>
> Patches should use a more-or-less consecutive range of OIDs.
> Best practice is to make a random choice in the range 8000-9999.
> Suggested random unused OID: 9099
>
> I would like to push this patch shortly. How do people feel about this
> wording? (It's based on the documentation added by commit a6417078.)
>
I'm fine with it!
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-08-02 19:54:38 | Re: using index or check in ALTER TABLE SET NOT NULL |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-08-02 19:48:59 | Re: pglz performance |