Re: BUG #16577: Segfault on altering a table located in a dropped tablespace

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 09:57:00AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Jan-13, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> I have not found a thread discussing that around the date of this
>> commit, but I'll take your word on that.
> 
> I bet you didn't search pgsql-patches ;-)
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20050703051522.GA13207%40surnet.cl

Ah, thanks.  I only looked at -hackers and -bugs.  This makes sense.

>> For now we assume that this code path is taken only for partitioned
>> tables or indexes per the logic in heap_create().  Perhaps it would be
>> better to add to this code path, or to recordDependencyOnTablespace()
>> an assertion to check that only the supported relkinds register this
>> dependency?  If a new relkind is added, it would be easy to miss that
>> this shared dependency may need to be supported.
> 
> Hmm ... the intent here is that if there is no storage, but a tablespace
> is specified, then a dependency protects.  This should be agnostic to
> relkind considerations.  I had first written the new symbol as
> SHARED_DEPENDENCY_PARTITIONED_TABLE but then I realized the error of my
> ways :-)

Yeah, SHARED_DEPENDENCY_TABLESPACE is much better.  Perhaps I am just
too much willing to add unnecessary defenses, so I am fine with any
decision you'll take here.

In short, I am fine with what you have.  Thanks for taking the time to
sort this stuff out.
--
Michael