From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order
 (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+HiwqE4CS4eaWhUeZWBY5LVN2J3qoe6RYAiPiQqQY+2rFTgLg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190208201925.GA5901@alvherre.pgsql>
 <29689.1549672900@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+HiwqE4CS4eaWhUeZWBY5LVN2J3qoe6RYAiPiQqQY+2rFTgLg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
	message dated "Sat, 09 Feb 2019 16:14:41 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <16445.1549697160.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2019 02:26:00 -0500
Message-ID: <16446.1549697160@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 9:41 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> +1.  The best solution would presumably be to go through the normal
>> object deletion mechanism; though possibly there's a reason that
>> won't work given you're already inside some other DDL.

> Maybe:
> - CatalogTupleDelete(trigrel, &trigtup->t_self);
> + RemoveTriggerById(trgform->oid)?

No, that's still the back end of the deletion machinery, and in particular
it would fail to clean pg_depend entries for the trigger.  Going in by the
front door would use performDeletion().  (See deleteOneObject() to get
an idea of what's being possibly missed out here.)

			regards, tom lane