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: 2019-02-11 01:54:23
Message-ID: 20190211015423.GA16289@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-Feb-10, Tom Lane wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:

> > If we disregard the scenario were people downgrade across minor
> > versions, it's likely possible to produce SQL queries to transform from
> > the old arrangement to the new one, and include those in release notes
> > or a wiki page; not for this week's minors (ENOTIME) but maybe for the
> > next one.
>
> Dunno ... we couldn't force people to do that, so the server would have to
> be prepared to cope with either arrangement, which seems like an
> impossible mess.

True.

--
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 2019-02-11 02:10:14 Re: indxpath.c's references to IndexOptInfo.ncolumns are all wrong, no?
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2019-02-11 01:35:04 Re: indxpath.c's references to IndexOptInfo.ncolumns are all wrong, no?