At Thu, 21 Nov 2019 10:35:25 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
> > If we don't intend what Peter pointed (arrangement of low-OIDs at
> > feature freeze), it can be done by moving OIDs to lower values at
> > commit. (I don't mean commiters should do that, it may be bothersome.)
>
> Yes, that's exactly the
Kyotaro Horiguchi writes:
> At Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:45:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
>> I do not think there is any easy solution that guarantees that.
>> We could imagine having some sort of pre-registration mechanism,
>> maybe, but it seems like more trouble than benefit.
> If we don't intend wh
At Wed, 20 Nov 2019 20:44:18 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote in
> It is still within the discretion of committers to use the
> non-reserved/development OID ranges directly. For example, a committer
That happens at feature freeze. Understood.
At Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:45:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote in
Kyotaro Horiguchi writes:
> At Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:10:09 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote in
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:07 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Yep, agreed. This looks like an oversight. Peter?
>> It's not an oversight. See the commit message of a6417078, and the
>> additions that wer
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 8:33 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> So, still any ongoing patch can stamp on another when it is committed
> by certain probability (even if it's rather low)). And consecutive
> high-OID "hole"s are going to be shortened and decrease throgh a year.
Right.
> By the way even
At Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:10:09 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote in
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:07 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Yep, agreed. This looks like an oversight. Peter?
>
> It's not an oversight. See the commit message of a6417078, and the
> additions that were made to the RELEASE_CHANGES
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:07 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yep, agreed. This looks like an oversight. Peter?
It's not an oversight. See the commit message of a6417078, and the
additions that were made to the RELEASE_CHANGES file.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 5:44 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> I happened to find that the commit 71dcd74 added the function
> "network_sortsupport" with OID = 8190. Is it right? Otherwise we
> should we move it to, say, 4035.
>
> (I understand that OID [8000, ] are development-use.)
I committed
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:44:30AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> I happened to find that the commit 71dcd74 added the function
> "network_sortsupport" with OID = 8190. Is it right? Otherwise we
> should we move it to, say, 4035.
>
> (I understand that OID [8000, ] are development-use.)
Y
Hello.
I happened to find that the commit 71dcd74 added the function
"network_sortsupport" with OID = 8190. Is it right? Otherwise we
should we move it to, say, 4035.
(I understand that OID [8000, ] are development-use.)
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
>From
10 matches
Mail list logo
