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

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
Date
Msg-id 729f7d3d-2c6f-6809-398e-b343075687ae@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2019-02-27 22:50, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> However, the continuous
> integration stuff has created an expectation that your patch shouldn't
> be left to bitrot for long. Silly mechanical bitrot now seems like a
> much bigger problem than it was before these developments. It unfairly
> puts reviewers off engaging.

If this is the problem (although I think we'd find that OID collisions
are rather rare compared to other gratuitous cfbot failures), why not
have the cfbot build with a flag that ignores OID collisions?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

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