Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Feb-09, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, that's still the back end of the deletion machinery, and in particular
>> it would fail to clean pg_depend entries for the trigger. Going in by the
>> front door would use performDeletion(). (See deleteOneObject() to get
>> an idea of what's being possibly missed out here.)
> This patch I think does the right thing.
(squint ...) Don't much like the undocumented deleteDependencyRecordsFor
call; that looks like it's redundant with what deleteOneObject will do.
I think you're doing it to get rid of the INTERNAL dependency so that
deletion won't recurse across that, but why is that a good idea? Needs
a comment at least.
Also, I suspect you might need a second CCI after the performDeletion
call, in case the loop iterates?
regards, tom lane
