Re: regdatabase

Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com>

From: Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello@gmail.com>

To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

Cc: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick@gmail.com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2025-05-30T20:07:48Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Add new OID alias type regdatabase.
- bd09f024a1bb 19 (unreleased) landed
pg_upgrade: Preserve database OIDs.
- aa01051418f1 15.0 cited

>
> >
> For now, I've just added another case block for REGDATABASEOID to match
the
> others.  If there are problems with non-pinned objects being considered
> shippable, it's not really the fault of this patch.  Also, from reading
> around [0], I get the idea that "shippability" might just mean that the
> same object _probably_ exists on the remote server.  Plus, there seems to
> be very few use-cases for shipping reg* values in the first place.  But
> even after reading lots of threads, code, and docs, I'm still not sure I
> fully grasp all the details here.
>
> [0] https://postgr.es/m/flat/1423433.1652722406%40sss.pgh.pa.us
>

I agree with blocking it for now. The patch LGTM, all tests pass and seems
to cover all the changes.

Not sure if it is worth having some dump/restore tap tests for tables with
regdatabase type.

Regards,

--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello