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: 2019-02-08T03:35:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 9:15 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I have a mostly-working patch along these lines that I hope to
>> finish up and post tomorrow.

> Do you think that you'll end up pushing the HEAD-only fix shortly?

I have a working patch now, but I think I'm too tired to explain it,
so I'm going to post it tomorrow instead.  It's a big enough change
that it might be advisable for someone to review it --- are you
interested?

			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.