On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I've got much of the code for it already (in the wreckage of my failed
> attempts), so I'll go back and finish that up. I was just waiting to see
> how loudly people would howl about using object type as a condition for
> figuring out what a pg_depend entry really means. If we're okay with
> that hack, I think I can make it work.
Perhaps I've missed some subtlety, but I'm not sure that it's all that
ugly. If splitting INTERNAL_AUTO into two new dependency types amounts
to the same thing as what you suggest here, then what's the
difference? If this secondary INTERNAL_AUTO entry property can be
determined from the pg_depend record alone with either approach, then
it's not obvious to me that an "explicit representation" buys us
anything. Yes, you must introduce a special case...but isn't it a
special case either way?
--
Peter Geoghegan
