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: 2018-12-18T22:26:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 2:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Do you mean "same" output, or "sane" output?  I'd certainly expect
>> the latter.

> I meant sane.

> --ignore-system-indexes leads to slightly wrong answers in a number of
> the diagnostic messages run by the regression tests (I recall that the
> number of objects affected by CASCADE sometimes differed, and I think
> that there was also a certain amount of this DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL_AUTO
> business that Alvaro looked into). I think that this must have always
> been true.

Hm, that definitely leads me to feel that we've got bug(s) in
dependency.c.  I'll take a look sometime soon.

			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.