From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 15:51:36 -0500
Message-ID: <12607.1549831896@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190210204756.GA10790@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20190210204756.GA10790@alvherre.pgsql>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Feb-10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Primary and secondary partition dependencies behave identically
>> except that the primary dependency is preferred for use in error
>> messages; hence, a partition-dependent object should have one
>> primary partition dependency and one or more secondary partition
>> dependencies.
> Hmm, zero or more secondary partition dependencies?
If there's only one partition dependency, why use the mechanism
at all?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, pg@bowt.ie
Subject: Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
In-Reply-To: <12607.1549831896@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox