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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
Date: 2019-02-10 20:51:36
Message-ID: 12607.1549831896@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-Feb-10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Primary and secondary partition dependencies behave identically
>> except that the primary dependency is preferred for use in error
>> messages; hence, a partition-dependent object should have one
>> primary partition dependency and one or more secondary partition
>> dependencies.

> Hmm, zero or more secondary partition dependencies?

If there's only one partition dependency, why use the mechanism
at all?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-02-10 20:54:49 Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-02-10 20:47:56 Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)