| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tim Uckun <timuckun(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: invisible dependencies on a table? |
| Date: | 2013-12-14 22:42:14 |
| Message-ID: | 5694.1387060934@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Alright, just do my head does not explode, I am going to say the
> pg_describe_object() query is from a different run where you used table
> names foonew and fooold instead of foo1 and foo2?
Argh, sorry about that! I decided old/new would be more useful names
in the middle of composing the example, and forgot to go back and fix
the creation commands in my text.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wolfgang Keller | 2013-12-15 15:40:30 | Re: [DOCS] Re: postgresql.org inconsistent (Re: PG replication across DataCenters) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-12-14 22:36:58 | Re: Unexpected update behaviour |