Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
Date
Msg-id 12776.1551304757@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> We do need a couple of pieces of new infrastructure to make this idea
> conveniently workable.  One is a tool to allow automatic OID renumbering
> instead of having to do it by hand; Naylor has a draft for that upthread.

Oh: arguably, something else we'd need to do to ensure that OID
renumbering is trouble-free is to institute a strict rule that OID
references in the *.dat files must be symbolic.  We had not bothered
to convert every single reference type before, reasoning that some
of them were too little-used to be worth the trouble; but someday
that'll rise up to bite us, if semi-automated renumbering becomes
a thing.

It looks to me like the following OID columns remain unconverted:

pg_class.reltype
pg_database.dattablespace
pg_ts_config.cfgparser
pg_ts_config_map.mapcfg, mapdict
pg_ts_dict.dicttemplate
pg_type.typcollation
pg_type.typrelid

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?