Re: Wrong order of tests in findDependentObjects()

Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com> writes:
> On 12/1/16 1:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think that the patch I wrote is good cleanup, so I'm still inclined
>> to apply it in HEAD, but I no longer think it's fixing any case that's
>> significant in the field.  I wonder if you have a counterexample?

> No; I'm sure I've run into this because of a temp object other than a 
> table (probably a function, though possibly something else).

Makes sense.  The fact that we protect against this for temp tables and
views would make it all the more surprising when you get bit by some
less-common object type.
        regards, tom lane