On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:52 PM Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com> wrote:
> Noob question here: why not start with the next unused OID in the range, and on the other hand reserve the range for
sequentially-assignedvalues?
The general idea is to avoid OID collisions while a patch is under
development. Choosing a value that aligns nicely with
already-allocated OIDs makes these collisions much more likely, which
commit a6417078 addressed back in March. We want a random choice among
patches, but OIDs used within a patch should be consecutive.
(There is still some chance of a collision, but you have to be fairly
unlucky to have that happen under the system introduced by commit
a6417078.)
It's probably the case that most patches that create a new pg_proc
entry only create one. The question of consecutive OIDs only comes up
with a fairly small number of patches.
--
Peter Geoghegan
