Horton

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

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-02-10T20:51:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Feb-10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Primary and secondary partition dependencies behave identically
>> except that the primary dependency is preferred for use in error
>> messages; hence, a partition-dependent object should have one
>> primary partition dependency and one or more secondary partition
>> dependencies.

> Hmm, zero or more secondary partition dependencies?

If there's only one partition dependency, why use the mechanism
at all?

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Redesign the partition dependency mechanism.

  2. Fix trigger drop procedure

  3. Sort the dependent objects before recursing in findDependentObjects().

  4. Avoid sometimes printing both tables and their columns in DROP CASCADE.