Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Feb-08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, I came across some coding in CloneFkReferencing() that looks fishy
>> as hell: that function imagines that it can delete an existing trigger
>> with nothing more than a summary CatalogTupleDelete().  I didn't do
>> anything about that here, but if it's not broken, I'd like to see an
>> explanation why not.  I added a comment complaining about the lack of
>> pg_depend cleanup, and there's also the question of whether we don't
>> need to broadcast a relcache inval for the trigger's table.

> Oops, this is new code in 0464fdf07f69 (Jan 21st).  Unless you object,
> I'll study a fix for this now, to avoid letting it appear in the minor
> next week.

+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.

			regards, tom lane