"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 11:54 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I think it's a mistake to suppose that pg_type_d.h is the only >> place where there's a risk of confusion. We should be thinking >> about this more generally: genbki.pl is taking zero thought to >> make what it emits readable. I think it would help to >> label the sections it emits, perhaps along the lines of >> /* Auto-generated OID macros */
> I'd consider this enough for the moment, so long as we explicitly address > the cross-version constancy of the OID values associated with each type.
That's documented elsewhere, I believe. For the foo_d.h files, I think it'd be sufficient to do something like 0001 attached.
WFM. Thanks.
Also, while checking out the results, I noticed that pg_class.h has an "extern" in the wrong place: it's exposed to client code which can have no use for it. That extern doesn't mention any backend-only typedefs, so it's fairly harmless, but it's still a clear example of somebody not reading the memo. Hence 0002.
