From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages) |
Date: | 2019-01-19 02:01:09 |
Message-ID: | 201901190201.fmtf2fdn2rec@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Jan-18, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:34 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > * There is still instability in which object you get told to drop
> > when attempting to drop an index partition or trigger, as a consequence
> > of there being two possible DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL_AUTO targets. I still
> > feel that the right fix there involves changing the design for what
> > dependency types we store, but I've not worked on it yet.
>
> I thought that your ALTER OBJECT DEPENDS ON EXTENSION example made the
> case for fixing that directly inarguable. I'm slightly surprised that
> you're not fully convinced of this already. Have I missed some
> subtlety?
I agree that it needs fixed, but I don't think we know what to change it
*to*. The suggestion to use one AUTO and one INTERNAL seems to me to
break some use cases. Maybe one INTERNAL and one INTERNAL_AUTO works
well, not sure.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Edmund Horner | 2019-01-19 04:04:13 | Re: Tid scan improvements |
Previous Message | Vik Fearing | 2019-01-19 02:01:07 | Re: [HACKERS] REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |