| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: dropping column prevented due to inherited index |
| Date: | 2019-10-03 12:18:12 |
| Message-ID: | 20191003121812.GA18476@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Oct-03, Amit Langote wrote:
> There may not really be any problem with the commit itself, but I
> suspect that the new types of dependencies (or the way
> findDependentObject() analyzes them) don't play well with inheritance
> recursion of ATExecDropColumn(). Currently, child columns (and its
> dependencies) are dropped before the parent column (and its
> dependencies). By using the attached patch which reverses that order,
> the error goes away, but I'm not sure that that's the correct
> solution.
Hmm. I wonder if we shouldn't adopt the coding pattern we've used
elsewhere of collecting all columns to be dropped first into an
ObjectAddresses array, then use performMultipleDeletions.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-10-03 12:25:54 | Re: Collation versioning |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2019-10-03 12:05:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |