Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 2:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Do you mean "same" output, or "sane" output?  I'd certainly expect
>> the latter.

> I meant sane.

> --ignore-system-indexes leads to slightly wrong answers in a number of
> the diagnostic messages run by the regression tests (I recall that the
> number of objects affected by CASCADE sometimes differed, and I think
> that there was also a certain amount of this DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL_AUTO
> business that Alvaro looked into). I think that this must have always
> been true.

Hm, that definitely leads me to feel that we've got bug(s) in
dependency.c.  I'll take a look sometime soon.

            regards, tom lane