On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 4:24 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I thought that your ALTER OBJECT DEPENDS ON EXTENSION example made the
> > case for fixing that directly inarguable. I'm slightly surprised that
> > you're not fully convinced of this already. Have I missed some
> > subtlety?
>
> It's clear that we must change *something* in that area. I'm not yet
> wedded to a particular fix, just expressing a guess as to what might
> be the cleanest fix.
I'm surprised that you're not "wedded" to that fix in some sense,
though. Your analysis about the right design having one
DEPENDENCY_INTERNAL dependency on the partition master index, and one
DEPENDENCY_AUTO dependency on the matching partitioned table seemed
spot on to me.
> Also, we evidently need something we can back-patch into v11, which might
> end up being very far from clean :-(. I have no opinions yet on what
> would make sense in that branch.
Me neither, but, as I said, I think that you've identified the right
design for the master branch. And, I tend to doubt that you'll find
something that works for the backbranches that is also worth using in
the master branch.
Why does it seem necessary to fix the bug in the backbranches? I agree
that it's broken, but it's not obvious to me that it'll cause serious
problems in the real world that outweigh the potential downsides.
Perhaps I've missed some obvious downside.
--
Peter Geoghegan
