On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> 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
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
