| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(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: | 2019-02-10 01:26:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20190210012659.GA31140@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Feb-09, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2019-Feb-09, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Oh ... then why don't we go ahead and get rid of the constraint entry,
> >> too?
>
> > Because each partition has its own pg_constraint entry. (Otherwise
> > there's no place to put the column numbers into -- they can differ from
> > partition to partition, remember.) The only thing we do is mark it as
> > child of the parent's one.
>
> Uh-huh. And what happens after DETACH PARTITION ... are you going to run
> around and recreate these triggers?
Yep, that's there too.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-10 01:41:06 | Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-10 01:25:37 | Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages) |