Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order(regressions in DROP diagnostic messages) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order(regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wzk4_4BgbnjH1zt35kuHqsfGBcCejiEEemO=mYOD1vT5hQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order(regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 5:09 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> In the kludgey patch that I posted, the 4-byte value is manufactured
> artificially within a backend in descending order. That may have a
> slight advantage over object oid, even after the pg_depend correctness
> issues are addressed. A fixed order within a backend or originating
> transaction seems like it might avoid a few remaining instability
> issues. Not sure. I seem to recall there being some disagreement
> between you and Andres on this very point (is object oid a perfectly
> stable tie-breaker in practice?) on a similar thread from 2017.

Here are your remarks about it on that 2017 thread:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/11852.1501610262%40sss.pgh.pa.us

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Fixing findDependentObjects()'s dependency on scan order(regressions in DROP diagnostic messages)
Next
From: Haribabu Kommi
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum