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
