| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | crystal <crystal_lium(at)163(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #4289: drop owned by report ERROR: cache lookup failed for relation 16390 |
| Date: | 2008-07-09 15:32:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20080709153241.GD3946@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Rats. I guess this is due to the two-pass nature of some algorithm.
> > (Dropping owned by u1 cascade drops the view too, and then when dropping
> > owned by u2, it tries to find the view and the cache lookup fails).
>
> Actually, on looking closer, the problem is that recursiveDeletion fails
> to pass alreadyDeleted down to (and through) deleteDependentObjects.
> So the cascaded delete doesn't get reported back to
> performMultipleDeletions, and it doesn't know to skip the view when it
> gets to it. So this is clearly a bug, and seemingly not so hard to fix.
Hmm, in this case I wonder if this could show up in other cases too,
like DROP SCHEMA.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-09 15:40:09 | Re: BUG #4289: drop owned by report ERROR: cache lookup failed for relation 16390 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-09 15:26:18 | Re: BUG #4289: drop owned by report ERROR: cache lookup failed for relation 16390 |