Re: Allowing extensions to find out the OIDs of their member objects - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Gierth
Subject Re: Allowing extensions to find out the OIDs of their member objects
Date
Msg-id 8736pm6dyd.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Allowing extensions to find out the OIDs of their member objects  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Allowing extensions to find out the OIDs of their member objects  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:

 Tom> I'm not exactly following this concern. I wasn't imagining that
 Tom> we'd assign each individual OID ourselves, but rather give out
 Tom> blocks of OIDs. Admittedly, the blocks can't be huge, but it
 Tom> doesn't seem to me that this'd create an impossible burden for
 Tom> either us or extension developers.

Even that's not acceptable. There is no reason why someone should not be
able to create extensions freely without us ever knowing about them or
needing to.

In fact I suggest that "there shall be no registries of third parties"
be made a formal project policy.

 Tom> We could also reserve some range of OIDs for "local extensions",
 Tom> whereby people who didn't intend to publish their extensions for
 Tom> widespread use could just use some of those OIDs rather than
 Tom> having to ask for a public assignment.

That's not acceptable either; local extensions have a way of becoming
global.

Seriously, this whole idea is a lazy hack. Fixed assignments? really?

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Imai, Yoshikazu"
Date:
Subject: RE: speeding up planning with partitions
Next
From: "Imai, Yoshikazu"
Date:
Subject: RE: speeding up planning with partitions