Re: problem/bug in drop tablespace?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, "Michael Nolan *EXTERN*" <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: problem/bug in drop tablespace?
Date: 2012-05-12 00:28:28
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZdnku3rqRqKfeVVCooKHJ19ev1rxJ6X4_xkX8Gi+TZHg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> A larger question is whether we should start making pg_shdepend entries
> for table/index usage of non-default tablespaces, so that you couldn't
> DROP a tablespace that the catalogs think still has tables/indexes in
> it.

I'm astonished we don't do that already. Seems inconsistent with
other SQL object types - most obviously, schemas - and a potentially
giant foot-gun.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2012-05-12 00:37:58 Re: Draft release notes complete
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-05-11 23:57:59 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Ensure age() returns a stable value rather than the latest value