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: 2019-02-09T17:13:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> Reading Tom's reply to my email, I wondered if performDeletion won't
> do more than what the code is already doing (except calling the right
> trigger deletion function which the current code doesn't), because the
> trigger in question is an internal trigger without any dependencies
> (the function it invokes are pinned by the system)?

A big part of the point here is to not have to have such assumptions
wired into the fk-cloning code.  But even if that internal dependency is
the only one the trigger is involved in, there are other steps in
deleteOneObject that shouldn't be ignored.  For example, somebody
could've attached a comment to it.

			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.