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: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-12-18T22:11:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:20 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.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

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.