pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.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: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 19:41:40 -0500
Message-ID: <29689.1549672900@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190208201925.GA5901@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20190208201925.GA5901@alvherre.pgsql>

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Feb-08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, I came across some coding in CloneFkReferencing() that looks fishy
>> as hell: that function imagines that it can delete an existing trigger
>> with nothing more than a summary CatalogTupleDelete().  I didn't do
>> anything about that here, but if it's not broken, I'd like to see an
>> explanation why not.  I added a comment complaining about the lack of
>> pg_depend cleanup, and there's also the question of whether we don't
>> need to broadcast a relcache inval for the trigger's table.

> Oops, this is new code in 0464fdf07f69 (Jan 21st).  Unless you object,
> I'll study a fix for this now, to avoid letting it appear in the minor
> next week.

+1.  The best solution would presumably be to go through the normal
object deletion mechanism; though possibly there's a reason that
won't work given you're already inside some other DDL.

			regards, tom lane




view thread (84+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <29689.1549672900@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../29689.1549672900@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/29689.1549672900@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply

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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, pg@bowt.ie
  Subject: Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
  In-Reply-To: <29689.1549672900@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* 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