Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gZNot-0005fZ-WE for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 22:26:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gZNos-0002Gy-Ov for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 22:26:30 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gZNos-0002Gq-EK for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 22:26:30 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gZNoq-0008Fe-2T for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 22:26:29 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id wBIMQOMg022792; Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:26:24 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Geoghegan cc: Alvaro Herrera , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages) In-reply-to: References: <20181218212053.4vqcmmcicbzr2jyc@alvherre.pgsql> <21925.1545171102@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Geoghegan message dated "Tue, 18 Dec 2018 14:17:54 -0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <22790.1545171984.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 17:26:24 -0500 Message-ID: <22791.1545171984@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Peter Geoghegan writes: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 2:11 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> Do you mean "same" output, or "sane" output? I'd certainly expect >> the latter. > I meant sane. > --ignore-system-indexes leads to slightly wrong answers in a number of > the diagnostic messages run by the regression tests (I recall that the > number of objects affected by CASCADE sometimes differed, and I think > that there was also a certain amount of this DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL_AUTO > business that Alvaro looked into). I think that this must have always > been true. Hm, that definitely leads me to feel that we've got bug(s) in dependency.c. I'll take a look sometime soon. regards, tom lane