Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 23:01:09 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order
 (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
Message-ID: <201901190201.fmtf2fdn2rec@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAH2-Wzk-57Bw6PazMEVMLn2T5enHMoq-PqXR8LGxjJO0kgm0+w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-1013-2c1e88
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Jan-18, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 3:34 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> > * There is still instability in which object you get told to drop
> > when attempting to drop an index partition or trigger, as a consequence
> > of there being two possible DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL_AUTO targets.  I still
> > feel that the right fix there involves changing the design for what
> > dependency types we store, but I've not worked on it yet.
> 
> I thought that your ALTER OBJECT DEPENDS ON EXTENSION example made the
> case for fixing that directly inarguable. I'm slightly surprised that
> you're not fully convinced of this already. Have I missed some
> subtlety?

I agree that it needs fixed, but I don't think we know what to change it
*to*.  The suggestion to use one AUTO and one INTERNAL seems to me to
break some use cases.  Maybe one INTERNAL and one INTERNAL_AUTO works
well, not sure.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services