From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.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: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 22:16:54 -0300
Message-ID: <20190210011654.GA30811@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <32757.1549744015@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 2019-Feb-09, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2019-Feb-09, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, the question that's begged here is exactly why it's okay to
> >> remove the trigger and dependency link despite the fact that the
> >> constraint needs it. I suppose the answer is that we'll
> >> subsequently insert a new trigger implementing the same constraint
> >> (and internally-linked to it)? That information is what I'd like
> >> to have in the comment.
>
> > Well, the answer is that the trigger is no longer needed. This is
> > an action trigger, i.e. it's attached to the referenced relation;
> > and the action is making an independent table become a partition.
> > Since the partition is reachable by the action trigger that goes
> > through the parent table, we no longer need the action trigger that
> > goes directly to the partition.
>
> Oh ... then why don't we go ahead and get rid of the constraint entry,
> too?
Because each partition has its own pg_constraint entry. (Otherwise
there's no place to put the column numbers into -- they can differ from
partition to partition, remember.) The only thing we do is mark it as
child of the parent's one.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
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: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, amitlangote09@gmail.com, pg@bowt.ie
Subject: Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
In-Reply-To: <20190210011654.GA30811@alvherre.pgsql>
* 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