From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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: | 2019-02-05 22:50:34 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmRtQLJdC7KSdtwxQ65Yk+_Vi89eVqKJvPOx=Xc7WLLKw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I've got much of the code for it already (in the wreckage of my failed
> attempts), so I'll go back and finish that up. I was just waiting to see
> how loudly people would howl about using object type as a condition for
> figuring out what a pg_depend entry really means. If we're okay with
> that hack, I think I can make it work.
Perhaps I've missed some subtlety, but I'm not sure that it's all that
ugly. If splitting INTERNAL_AUTO into two new dependency types amounts
to the same thing as what you suggest here, then what's the
difference? If this secondary INTERNAL_AUTO entry property can be
determined from the pg_depend record alone with either approach, then
it's not obvious to me that an "explicit representation" buys us
anything. Yes, you must introduce a special case...but isn't it a
special case either way?
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-02-05 23:47:50 | Re: Synchronize with imath upstream |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-02-05 22:32:14 | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |