Hi,
On 2019-09-04 09:41:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2019-08-30 12:35:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think it's the sort of thing that we sometimes cover in the
> >> "source code" changes of the release notes. But yeah, 09568ec3d's
> >> idea was pretty much fully superseded by a6417078c, so if we're
> >> going to document anything it should be the latter not the former.
>
> > Hm - not sure I see how a6417078c supersedes 09568ec3d, on the rationale
> > that we'd discussed in the thread, which the commit message sums up as:
> > Add a note suggesting that oids in forks should be assigned in the
> > 9000-9999 range.
> > As forks != extensions, the release note entry seems misleading, and
> > a6417078c doesn't seem relevant?
>
> If we were trying to honor that rule, we'd be asking patches to use
> temporary OIDs that don't fall into the 9K range. Otherwise, a fork
> that thinks it has private OIDs up there is going to have intermittent
> trouble tracking HEAD.
Given the timeline 09568ec3d really couldn't forsee a6417078c...
> As things stand after a6417078c, the safest place for a fork to put
> private OIDs is actually from 7999 down; patches shouldn't touch that
> range, and it'll be a long time till we hit it working up.
Should we just update the comment to reference that then?
Greetings,
Andres Freund