Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> writes:
> 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?
It's the same as long as we always think that the "real owner" of a
subsidiary object is of the same type as that object, eg that the
real owner of a per-partition trigger is the parent trigger, the real
owner of a per-partition index is the parent index, etc ... and that
there's only going to be one parent object of that type.
I don't immediately have a counterexample to this, which is why I feel
like this is an OK solution for now. But I'm not sure it'll hold good
indefinitely.
Actually, the index case is already on the edge of being a problem:
both parents will be relations, and I suspect the code will have to
look at relkinds to identify which parent to consider the "real owner".
BTW, does anyone else feel like our terminology around partitions is
a dead loss? I have not seen anybody use the word in a way that makes
a clear distinction between the parent "partitioned" object and the
child "partition" objects, at least not when it comes to subsidiary
objects like triggers.
regards, tom lane
