On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 01:25:03PM +0500, RekGRpth wrote:
> - Is a hook here acceptable at all, or would you rather extend the
> binary-upgrade mechanism ("the next OID for this catalog is X") to
> normal operation?I don't like the idea of a hook for that. That seems clumsy as it requires the hook to be loaded on the target server. If you wish to fix an OID in time for a custom catalog, cannot it be something that could also be done on the extension side? Or is that really a case common enough out there that it justifies an in-core facility to support in core? If that were common enough, not having to duplicate the same facilities across a few dozen extension could make sense, yes, though I doubt that a hook is the adapted interface for that. Your idea of a binary-upgrade-like-mechanism similar in some way to the existing object dumping for extensions would make more sense, the idea being to ease the move of the extension object *across major versions*. > Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <[email protected]> Okay.... -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
