From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Release notes on "reserved OIDs"
In-reply-to: <20190904094055.og3vq27tj7we7x4n@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20190830153424.GA3324@alvherre.pgsql>
 <29753.1567182909@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20190904094055.og3vq27tj7we7x4n@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Wed, 04 Sep 2019 02:40:55 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <22547.1567604502.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2019 09:41:43 -0400
Message-ID: <22548.1567604503@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2019-08-30 12:35:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it's the sort of thing that we sometimes cover in the
>> "source code" changes of the release notes.  But yeah, 09568ec3d's
>> idea was pretty much fully superseded by a6417078c, so if we're
>> going to document anything it should be the latter not the former.

> Hm - not sure I see how a6417078c supersedes 09568ec3d, on the rationale
> that we'd discussed in the thread, which the commit message sums up as:
>     Add a note suggesting that oids in forks should be assigned in the
>     9000-9999 range.
> As forks != extensions, the release note entry seems misleading, and
> a6417078c doesn't seem relevant?

If we were trying to honor that rule, we'd be asking patches to use
temporary OIDs that don't fall into the 9K range.  Otherwise, a fork
that thinks it has private OIDs up there is going to have intermittent
trouble tracking HEAD.

As things stand after a6417078c, the safest place for a fork to put
private OIDs is actually from 7999 down; patches shouldn't touch that
range, and it'll be a long time till we hit it working up.

			regards, tom lane