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 a9681fca-51d7-2692-84af-69fb505f0c6e@2ndquadrant.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?
Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?
List pgsql-hackers
On 2019-02-27 22:27, Tom Lane wrote:
>> OID collision doesn't seem to be a significant problem (for me).
> 
> Um, I beg to differ.  It's not at all unusual for pending patches to
> bit-rot for no reason other than suddenly getting an OID conflict.
> I don't have to look far for a current example:

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but that it's not a significant
problem overall.

The changes of a patch (a) allocating a new OID, (b) a second patch
allocating a new OID, (c) both being in flight at the same time, (d)
actually picking the same OID, are small.  I guess the overall time lost
to this issue is perhaps 2 hours per year.  On the other hand, with
about 2000 commits to master per year, if this renumbering business only
adds 2 seconds of overhead to committing, we're coming out behind.

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


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