From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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: | 2019-01-17 22:25:27 |
Message-ID: | 17113.1547763927@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-Jan-17, Tom Lane wrote:
>> DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL_AUTO, however, broke this completely, as the code
>> has no hesitation about making multiple entries of that kind. After
>> rather cursorily looking at that code, I'm leaning to the position
>> that DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL_AUTO is broken-by-design and needs to be
>> nuked from orbit. In the cases where it's being used, such as
>> partitioned indexes, I think that probably the right design is one
>> DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL dependency on the partition master index, and
>> then one DEPENDENCY_AUTO dependency on the matching partitioned table.
> As I recall, the problem with that approach is that you can't drop the
> partition when a partitioned index exists, because it follows the link
> to the parent index and tries to drop that.
Hm. Still, I can't believe that it's appropriate for a partitioned index
to have exactly the same kind of dependency on the master index as it
does on the associated table.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mikael Kjellström | 2019-01-17 22:37:34 | Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-01-17 22:23:02 | Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD |