Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > Oh, I see what you mean. I was just worried that some code might expect > template1 to always have an oid of 1, but we can just call that code > broken.
Ever since we invented template0, it's been possible to drop and recreate
template1, so I'd say any expectation that it must have OID 1 has been
wrong for a long time. This change will just make the situation more
common.
regards, tom lane
