Re: Tentative patch for making DROP put dependency info in DETAIL

Tom Lane wrote:

> One particular case of interest is in truncate.out, where the
> table-at-a-time implementation of DROP TABLE is clearly exposed
> by the fact that you get multiple NOTICEs. I wonder if it would
> be worth refactoring the code so that a multiple-object DROP is
> implemented via performMultipleDeletions(). This would have more
> than just cosmetic advantages: it would no longer matter what
> order you listed the tables in. But the refactoring required looks
> bigger and more tedious than I want to tackle right now.

Hmm, this is a bit ugly. I'd vote for doing the refactoring. However,
I'd say you should commit the patch you currently have and let one of
the younger hackers fix that problem -- it looks like an good beginner
project.

> I also want to note that we've historically had the code report
> auto-cascade drops as DEBUG2 messages. I tried to merge those reports
> into the main one but it was a complete mess :-( because the client and
> server-log messages might have different numbers of entries depending on
> their log-level settings. Almost the first case I tried favored me with
> NOTICE: drop cascades to 0 other object(s)
> DETAIL:
> reported to the client (with the server log of course saying something
> different). So I gave up and left that behavior separate.

Huh, annoying. Agreed with leaving that alone.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support