| From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| 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 07:23:51 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HiwqE3i+276KO7-WL7k6bC7ikOSbXEXwd4=B9ABTdbLd-i6A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 4:16 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> 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?
Thanks. The index on b is not really necessary for testing because it
remains unaffected, but maybe it's fine.
Regards,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2019-10-11 07:48:22 | Re: Standby accepts recovery_target_timeline setting? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-10-11 07:16:54 | Re: dropping column prevented due to inherited index |