From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
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: | 2019-02-09 00:41:40 |
Message-ID: | 29689.1549672900@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-Feb-08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, I came across some coding in CloneFkReferencing() that looks fishy
>> as hell: that function imagines that it can delete an existing trigger
>> with nothing more than a summary CatalogTupleDelete(). I didn't do
>> anything about that here, but if it's not broken, I'd like to see an
>> explanation why not. I added a comment complaining about the lack of
>> pg_depend cleanup, and there's also the question of whether we don't
>> need to broadcast a relcache inval for the trigger's table.
> Oops, this is new code in 0464fdf07f69 (Jan 21st). Unless you object,
> I'll study a fix for this now, to avoid letting it appear in the minor
> next week.
+1. The best solution would presumably be to go through the normal
object deletion mechanism; though possibly there's a reason that
won't work given you're already inside some other DDL.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-09 01:19:06 | First-draft release notes for next week's releases |
Previous Message | Alexandra Wang | 2019-02-09 00:36:13 | Make drop database safer |