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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Geoghegan
Тема Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
Дата
Msg-id CAH2-WzmMTGMcPuph4OvsO7Ykut0AOCF_i-=eaochT0dd2BN9CQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Why don't we provide a small reserved OID range that can be used by
patch authors temporarily, with the expectation that they'll be
replaced by "real" OIDs at the point the patch gets committed? This
would be similar the situation with catversion bumps -- we don't
expect patches that will eventually need them to have them.

It's considered good practice to choose an OID that's at the beginning
of the range shown by the unused_oids script, so naturally there is a
good chance that any patch that adds a system catalog entry will bit
rot prematurely. This seems totally unnecessary to me. You could even
have a replace_oids script under this system. That would replace the
known-temporary OIDs with mapped contiguous real values at the time of
commit (maybe it would just print out which permanent OIDs to use in
place of the temporary ones, and leave the rest up to the committer).
I don't do Perl, so I'm not volunteering for this.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Magnus Hagander
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pgsql: Remove references to Majordomo
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: ON SELECT rule on a table without columns