| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2019-10-11 07:16:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20191011071654.GC2373@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:28:02PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> Actually, the code initializes it on the first call (recursing is
> false) and asserts that it must have been already initialized in a
> recursive (recursing is true) call.
I have actually kept your simplified version.
> Okay, sure. Maybe it's better to write the comment inside the if
> block, because if recursing is true, we don't drop yet.
Sure.
> Thoughts on suggestion to expand the test case?
No objections to that, so done as per the attached. Does that match
what you were thinking about?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| ATExecDropColumn-inh-recursion-fix_v5.patch | text/x-diff | 8.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2019-10-11 07:23:51 | Re: dropping column prevented due to inherited index |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2019-10-11 06:05:54 | Re: adding partitioned tables to publications |