From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
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)
In-reply-to: <20190210011654.GA30811@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20190210011654.GA30811@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Sat, 09 Feb 2019 22:16:54 -0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <27978.1549761937.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2019 20:25:37 -0500
Message-ID: <27981.1549761937@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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?

			regards, tom lane