On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:52 PM Isaac Morland <isaac.morl...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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?
The general idea is to avoid OID collisions while a patch is under development. Choosing a value that aligns nicely with already-allocated OIDs makes these collisions much more likely, which commit a6417078 addressed back in March. We want a random choice among patches, but OIDs used within a patch should be consecutive. (There is still some chance of a collision, but you have to be fairly unlucky to have that happen under the system introduced by commit a6417078.) It's probably the case that most patches that create a new pg_proc entry only create one. The question of consecutive OIDs only comes up with a fairly small number of patches. -- Peter Geoghegan
