Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> writes:
> At Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:10:09 -0800, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote in
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:07 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>>> Yep, agreed. This looks like an oversight. Peter?
>> It's not an oversight. See the commit message of a6417078, and the
>> additions that were made to the RELEASE_CHANGES file.
Yes, the idea is that picking random OIDs in the 8000-9999 range is
less likely to cause conflicts between patches than our old habits.
> I thought that commits don't use the development OIDs and thought that
> we won't have conflict perfectly.
I do not think there is any easy solution that guarantees that.
We could imagine having some sort of pre-registration mechanism,
maybe, but it seems like more trouble than benefit.
> By the way even if we work this way, developers tend to pick up low
> range OIDs since it is printed at the beginning of the output. I think
> we should hide the whole list of unused oids defaultly and just
> suggest random one.
-1, that pretty much destroys the point of the unused_oids script.
regards, tom lane
