| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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: | 2019-02-08 20:19:25 |
| Message-ID: | 20190208201925.GA5901@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Feb-08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, I came across some coding in CloneFkReferencing() that looks fishy
> as hell: that function imagines that it can delete an existing trigger
> with nothing more than a summary CatalogTupleDelete(). I didn't do
> anything about that here, but if it's not broken, I'd like to see an
> explanation why not. I added a comment complaining about the lack of
> pg_depend cleanup, and there's also the question of whether we don't
> need to broadcast a relcache inval for the trigger's table.
Oops, this is new code in 0464fdf07f69 (Jan 21st). Unless you object,
I'll study a fix for this now, to avoid letting it appear in the minor
next week.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-02-08 21:40:14 | Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages) |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-02-08 19:30:32 | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |