Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iJkYy-0005nY-LB for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 20:34:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iJkVP-0008H7-BT for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 20:30:19 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iJkUO-0008GH-Uj for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 20:29:16 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iJkUM-0000bx-AK for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 20:29:16 +0000 Received: from pro.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x9DKTA3T012561; Sun, 13 Oct 2019 16:29:10 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Michael Paquier cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix dependency handling of column drop with partitioned tables In-reply-to: <20191013101331.GC1434@paquier.xyz> References: <20191013101331.GC1434@paquier.xyz> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier message dated "Sun, 13 Oct 2019 19:13:31 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <26256.1570998550.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 16:29:10 -0400 Message-ID: <26257.1570998550@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Michael Paquier writes: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 08:54:19AM +0000, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Fix dependency handling of column drop with partitioned tables > rhinoceros is unhappy with this one in the sepgsql tests as this has > moved a cascading drop notice when droping a column: > ... > It seems to me that it would be fine to just update the output to > the newly-expected behavior. Any opinions? Yeah, that sounds good to me. regards, tom lane