On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 16:49, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> writes: > > I've taken your patch, and changed the wording a bit. I think that > > it's worth being a bit more explicit. The attached revision produces > > output that looks like this: > > > Patches should use a more-or-less consecutive range of OIDs. > > Best practice is to make a random choice in the range 8000-9999. > > Suggested random unused OID: 9099 >
Noob question here: why not start with the next unused OID in the range, and on the other hand reserve the range for sequentially-assigned values?
