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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
Date: 2018-12-18 22:11:42
Message-ID: 21925.1545171102@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:20 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I can reproduce the
>> reported problem without your patch by using that flag. Here's a
>> recipe:

> Interesting.
> Note that if the standard that we're going to hold a solution to here
> is "must produce sane output with --ignore-system-indexes", then my
> solution will not meet that standard.

Do you mean "same" output, or "sane" output? I'd certainly expect
the latter.

I think though that Alvaro was just offering this as a way to poke
at the posited bug in dependency.c without having to install your
whole patch.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2018-12-18 22:17:54 Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-12-18 22:08:32 Re: still use IndexIsValid() etc. macros?