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

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WznEjtgrHrWWZ_NqaSspL+Dfi2O7NJj8TZUNmJqHrKXrXg@mail.gmail.com
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>)
Responses Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> A script such as you suggest might be a good way to reduce the temptation
> to get lazy at the last minute.  Now that the catalog data is pretty
> machine-readable, I suspect it wouldn't be very hard --- though I'm
> not volunteering either.  I'm envisioning something simple like "renumber
> all OIDs in range mmmm-nnnn into range xxxx-yyyy", perhaps with the
> ability to skip any already-used OIDs in the target range.

I imagined that the machine-readable catalog data would allow us to
assign non-numeric identifiers to this OID range. Perhaps there'd be a
textual symbol with a number in the range of 0-20 at the end. Those
would stick out like a sore thumb, making it highly unlikely that
anybody would forget about it at the last minute.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
Next
From: Brandur Leach
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch for SortSupport implementation on inet/cdir