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: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-02-09T07:26:00Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 9:41 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> +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.

> Maybe:
> - CatalogTupleDelete(trigrel, &trigtup->t_self);
> + RemoveTriggerById(trgform->oid)?

No, that's still the back end of the deletion machinery, and in particular
it would fail to clean pg_depend entries for the trigger.  Going in by the
front door would use performDeletion().  (See deleteOneObject() to get
an idea of what's being possibly missed out here.)

			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.