Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
Date: 2018-12-18 22:26:24
Message-ID: 22791.1545171984@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 2:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Do you mean "same" output, or "sane" output? I'd certainly expect
>> the latter.

> I meant sane.

> --ignore-system-indexes leads to slightly wrong answers in a number of
> the diagnostic messages run by the regression tests (I recall that the
> number of objects affected by CASCADE sometimes differed, and I think
> that there was also a certain amount of this DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL_AUTO
> business that Alvaro looked into). I think that this must have always
> been true.

Hm, that definitely leads me to feel that we've got bug(s) in
dependency.c. I'll take a look sometime soon.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2018-12-18 22:29:14 Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2018-12-18 22:25:12 Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor