On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:47:35PM +0530, Shruthi Gowda wrote: > On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:27 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > > It seems to me that what this comment is saying is that OIDs in the > > > second and third categories are doled out by counters. Therefore, we > > > can't know which of those OIDs will get used, or how many of them will > > > get used, or which objects will get which OIDs. Therefore, I think we > > > should go back to the approach that you were using for template0 and > > > handle both that database and postgres using that method. That is, > > > assign an OID manually, and make sure unused_oids knows that it should > > > be counted as already used. > > > > Indeed. If you're going to manually assign OIDs to these databases, > > do it honestly, and put them into the range intended for that purpose. > > Trying to take short-cuts is just going to cause trouble down the road. > > Understood. I will rework the patch accordingly. Thanks
Thanks. To get the rsync update reduction we need to preserve database oids. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
