Re: pg_depend - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: pg_depend
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.30.0107162137560.680-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to pg_depend  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_depend
Re: pg_depend
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian writes:

> I have found that many TODO items would benefit from a pg_depend table
> that tracks object dependencies.  TODO updated.

I'm not so convinced on that idea.  Assume you're dropping object foo.
You look at pg_depend and see that objects 145928, 264792, and 1893723
depend on it.  Great, what do you do now?

Every system catalog (except the really badly designed ones) already
contains dependency information.  What might help is that we make the
internal API for altering and dropping any kind of object more consistent
and general so that they can call each other in the dependency case.
(E.g., make sure none of them require whereToSendOutput or parser state as
an argument.)

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Larry Rosenman
Date:
Subject: Re: NetBSD 1.5.1(HP300)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN column SERIAL -- unexpected results