Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2022 16:47:17 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: "houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
Cc: Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>,
	"wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com" <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
	Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Confused comment about drop replica identity index
Message-ID: <YdKqBchHjcj1e2vH@paquier.xyz>
References: <CAExHW5uWwcV0-=JQXYhEpnEtmwmZQsh0c1N3cxxBYRhwE9WuvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Yblf/R3h0Dj+Ui2v@paquier.xyz>
 <OS3PR01MB6275A10D03572E27C4E2C9769E769@OS3PR01MB6275.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <YbpuuHqAkf2hjOA0@paquier.xyz>
 <OS3PR01MB62750A124D384B4E96CA43F19E779@OS3PR01MB6275.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <OS3PR01MB62750A0A1A282E9E0148172B9E7B9@OS3PR01MB6275.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <YcBkyHOBwSljDkCZ@paquier.xyz>
 <53e4a0d4-4b7b-4001-99c3-576bc03f73ef@www.fastmail.com>
 <YcEj7dtzl80AN5ow@paquier.xyz>
 <OS0PR01MB5716C0F50F48A87F281FB3B994459@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GEWNonCC60WFW7YC"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <OS0PR01MB5716C0F50F48A87F281FB3B994459@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/YdKqBchHjcj1e2vH%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--GEWNonCC60WFW7YC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 06:45:30AM +0000, houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com wrote:
> I think forbids DROP INDEX might not completely solve this problem. Becau=
se
> user could still use other command to delete the index, for example: ALTER
> TABLE DROP COLUMN. After dropping the column, the index on it will also be
> dropped.
>=20
> Besides, user can also ALTER REPLICA IDENTITY USING INDEX "primary key", =
and in
> this case, when they ALTER TABLE DROP CONSTR "PRIMARY KEY", the replica
> identity index will also be dropped.

Indexes related to any other object type, like constraints, are
dropped as part of index_drop() as per the handling of dependencies.
So, by putting a restriction there, any commands would take this code
path, and fail when trying to drop an index used as a replica
identity.  Why would that be logically a problem?  We may want errors
with more context for such cases, though, as complaining about an
object not directly known by the user when triggering a different
command, like a constraint index, could be confusing.
--
Michael

--GEWNonCC60WFW7YC
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Nl6D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--GEWNonCC60WFW7YC--