Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2019 22:26:59 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.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)
Message-ID: <20190210012659.GA31140@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <27981.1549761937@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Feb-09, Tom Lane wrote:

> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2019-Feb-09, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> Uh-huh.  And what happens after DETACH PARTITION ... are you going to run
> around and recreate these triggers?

Yep, that's there too.

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