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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Geoghegan
Тема Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order(regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
Дата
Msg-id CAH2-Wz=uTA7+UK7WZd1VfuGVP_DcpiSswjObRzVXPmouuXsSxg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order (regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 3:20 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > There is a symmetry to these that led me to have the same kind of
> > dependency from the index partition to the other two.
>
> It's symmetric as long as you suppose that the above are the only
> requirements.  However, there's another requirement, which is that
> if you do try to drop the index partition directly, we would like
> the error message to suggest dropping the master index, not the
> table.  The only way to be sure about what will be suggested is
> if there can be only one "owning object".

+1. This is certainly a necessary requirement. Absurd error messages
are not okay.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCH] get rid of StdRdOptions, use individual binaryreloptions representation for each relation kind instead
Следующее
От: Mikael Kjellström
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PSA: we lack TAP test coverage on NetBSD and OpenBSD