MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZkSO5qlRNnFimJev@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CA+TgmoYQh9y3yWm9keq5EzjLBw3y_kcQJ5-rUJtCcJHs6YNicg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zk3HLvMhft2taFIz@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CA+TgmoYAv09Y9Y8-yOMzTCijzZeVqFrLBx6Y4+VPh0CMg476Uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zk7D2M2pGk1JDkS8@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CA+TgmobnNpBhV13F+P6LKP+bLE3aBjzgeuf4yySnkHKceA475A@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZmFPfmSms4IyyO8T@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CA+TgmoaCJr2U1TfchSFn2jNEbvLsFYmh__A1mHhRv565MMezyg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZmLHwE4NSlzzxXDT@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CA+Tgmob_6FpJGkBRMOg+VrJ=eMHEyAC8-7HJvjMDShQd5Tt3Fw@mail.gmail.com> <ZmsjuTbjoUmuS7PT@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
In-Reply-To: <ZmsjuTbjoUmuS7PT@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 14:27:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+Tgmobeqs5tE8h-_PF_Orp67kNJdRJ9b4pqDYQr1WjLT24ZEg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Avoid orphaned objects dependencies, take 3
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, 
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmobeqs5tE8h-_PF_Orp67kNJdRJ9b4pqDYQr1WjLT24ZEg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 12:52=E2=80=AFPM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > table_open(childRelId, ...) would lock any "ALTER TABLE <childRelId> =
DROP CONSTRAINT"
> > > already. Not sure I understand your concern here.
> >
> > I believe this is not true. This would take a lock on the table, not
> > the constraint itself.
>
> I agree that it would not lock the constraint itself. What I meant to say=
 is that
> , nevertheless, the constraint can not be dropped. Indeed, the "ALTER TAB=
LE"
> necessary to drop the constraint (ALTER TABLE <childRelId> DROP CONSTRAIN=
T) would
> be locked by the table_open(childRelId, ...).

Ah, right. So, I was assuming that, with either this version of your
patch or the earlier version, we'd end up locking the constraint
itself. Was I wrong about that?

--=20
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com