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

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 8:50 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >>> [ invent separate primary and secondary partition dependencies? ]

> Here's a version of the patch that does it that way.

Now that I see separate DEPENDENCY_PARTITION_PRI and
DEPENDENCY_PARTITION_SEC dependency types, I agree that it's clearer
that way. It certainly clarifies what external dependency.c callers
are up to.

Minor issue here:

> !     <varlistentry>
> !      <term><symbol>DEPENDENCY_PARTITION_SEC</symbol> (<literal>S</literal>)</term>
> !      <listitem>
> !       <para>
> !        A <quote>secondary</quote> partition dependency acts identically to
> !        a primary one, except that the primary dependency is preferentially
> !        referenced in error messages.  An object should have at most one
> !        primary partition dependency, but there could perhaps be multiple
> !        secondary dependencies.
> !        Example: actually, we'll set up a child partitioned index with the
> !        parent partitioned index as primary partition dependency and the
> !        partition table as secondary partition dependency.  In this way,
> !        if the user tries to drop the child partitioned index, the error
> !        message will suggest dropping the parent partitioned index instead
> !        (not the table).
>         </para>

I think that the wording for this example needs to be tweaked.

Other than that, looks good to me.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan