On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:08 PM Tom Lane <t...@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
