Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
Date: 2019-02-10 01:25:37
Message-ID: 27981.1549761937@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-Feb-09, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oh ... then why don't we go ahead and get rid of the constraint entry,
>> too?

> Because each partition has its own pg_constraint entry. (Otherwise
> there's no place to put the column numbers into -- they can differ from
> partition to partition, remember.) The only thing we do is mark it as
> child of the parent's one.

Uh-huh. And what happens after DETACH PARTITION ... are you going to run
around and recreate these triggers?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-02-10 01:26:59 Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-02-10 01:16:54 Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)