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

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 22:15:54
Message-ID: 201901172215.plncg34crv3b@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-01-17 22:23:02 Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD
Previous Message Mikael Kjellström 2019-01-17 22:12:43 Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD