Horton

Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions?

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-02-27T22:44:30Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 2019-02-27 22:50, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> However, the continuous
> integration stuff has created an expectation that your patch shouldn't
> be left to bitrot for long. Silly mechanical bitrot now seems like a
> much bigger problem than it was before these developments. It unfairly
> puts reviewers off engaging.

If this is the problem (although I think we'd find that OID collisions
are rather rare compared to other gratuitous cfbot failures), why not
have the cfbot build with a flag that ignores OID collisions?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Commits

  1. Remove remaining hard-wired OID references in the initial catalog data.

  2. Create a script that can renumber manually-assigned OIDs.

  3. Minor improvements for reformat_dat_file.pl.