Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 17:19:25 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: 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)
Message-ID: <20190208201925.GA5901@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <18885.1549642539@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Feb-08, Tom Lane wrote:

> Also, I came across some coding in CloneFkReferencing() that looks fishy
> as hell: that function imagines that it can delete an existing trigger
> with nothing more than a summary CatalogTupleDelete().  I didn't do
> anything about that here, but if it's not broken, I'd like to see an
> explanation why not.  I added a comment complaining about the lack of
> pg_depend cleanup, and there's also the question of whether we don't
> need to broadcast a relcache inval for the trigger's table.

Oops, this is new code in 0464fdf07f69 (Jan 21st).  Unless you object,
I'll study a fix for this now, to avoid letting it appear in the minor
next week.

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