| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: | 2019-02-09 07:26:00 |
| Message-ID: | 16446.1549697160@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 9:41 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> +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.
> Maybe:
> - CatalogTupleDelete(trigrel, &trigtup->t_self);
> + RemoveTriggerById(trgform->oid)?
No, that's still the back end of the deletion machinery, and in particular
it would fail to clean pg_depend entries for the trigger. Going in by the
front door would use performDeletion(). (See deleteOneObject() to get
an idea of what's being possibly missed out here.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-02-09 09:10:52 | Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2019-02-09 07:14:41 | Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages) |