Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 17:54:49 -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: <20190210205449.GA10870@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-Wz=vi2Oq=d+j6Ya6yj_ud9ekCwOQDkEqTG9XLxhZPGN0ng@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Feb-10, Peter Geoghegan wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 8:13 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> > Just to be be clear, my inclination is to do nothing about this in v11.
> > It's not apparent to me that any fix is possible given the v11 dependency
> > data, at least not without downsides that'd likely outweigh the upsides.
> > We've not seen field complaints about these problems.
> 
> I thought that you might have had a trick up your sleeve for v11,
> although I had no idea how that would be possible without making sure
> that partition dependencies came in pairs to begin with.  :-)

If we disregard the scenario were people downgrade across minor
versions, it's likely possible to produce SQL queries to transform from
the old arrangement to the new one, and include those in release notes
or a wiki page; not for this week's minors (ENOTIME) but maybe for the
next one.

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