Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables
Date: 2020-01-14 00:19:38
Message-ID: 20200114001938.GD1515@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 07:45:06PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> This seems fiddly to handle better; maybe you'd have to have a new
> PERFORM_DELETION_* flag that says to ignore "missing" objects; so when
> you go from shdepDropOwned, you pass that flag all the way down to
> doDeletion(), so the objtype-specific function is called with
> "missing_ok", and ignore if the object has already gone away. That's
> tedious because none of the Remove* functions have the concept of
> missing_ok.

Yes, that would be invasive and I'd rather not backpatch such a change
but I don't see a better or cleaner way to handle that correctly
either than the way you are describing. Looking at all the
subroutines removing the objects by OID, a patch among those lines is
repetitive, though not complicated to do.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-01-14 00:27:05 Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-01-13 22:45:06 Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-01-14 00:27:05 Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-01-14 00:07:40 Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.