[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       pgsql-hackers
Subject:    Re: [HACKERS] Oid registry
From:       Magnus Hagander <magnus () hagander ! net>
Date:       2012-09-27 20:08:55
Message-ID: CABUevExMmEf5=S+jzyzrMjD8=ozBAsqN2t5WHCBK3FoYLofyWw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> I'm not sure that's a way we really want to go down. How do we define which
>> third party vendors would get to reserve oids? And how many? And under what
>> other potential terms?
>>
>> Seems like we'd set ourselves up for endless discussions and bike
>> shedding...
>
> Not really.  I'm only proposing that it would be nice to have a block
> of OIDs that core agrees not to assign for any other purpose, not that
> we dole out specific ones to specific companies.  There's no reason

Ah, ok. In that case I agree, that wouldn't be open for a lot of bikeshedding.

> why, for example, EnterpriseDB's fork can't use OIDs from the same
> reserved block as PostgreSQL-XC's fork or Greenplum's fork or Aster
> Data's fork - those are all distinct projects.  All might need private
> OIDs but they can all come from the same range because the code bases
> don't mingle.
>
> That having been said, we've gotten this far without having any
> terrible trouble about this, so maybe it's not worth worrying about.
> It's a nice-to-have, not a big deal.

Yeah, there's got to be a whole lot of other very much more
complicated things you have to do with each new major version :)

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]