On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 04:02:45PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@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 > 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.
Interesting idea, but if plugable data types started using that reserved range, it could conflict with XC or EDB-reserved oids, making those data types unusable in those forks. Maybe we need two reserved ranges. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
