| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [v9.2] DROP statement reworks |
| Date: | 2011-10-05 14:07:42 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaTSizAJBz8q=43dVjx2MRPmEga9-ASqva1Nt8UUFeHpg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
> The get_relation_address() follows the logic in RemoveRelations() to be
> eliminated by this patch, so it is not a code duplication.
> The reason why we didn't consolidate this routine with get_object_address()
> was that remove-index requires locks on the table which owns the index to
> be removed, and it was ugly to add an ad-hoc if-block on the routine.
Yeah, that's a problem that's been in the back of my mind for a bit
now, but I haven't come up with a good solution. I don't think
RemoveRelations() is the only place we have this problem, either.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Urbański | 2011-10-05 14:08:57 | Re: Error building v9.1.1 (git) with python 3.2.2 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-10-05 14:04:56 | Re: Action requested - Application Softblock implemented | Issue report ID341057 |