On 2017-08-01 13:48:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Oid is probably not good enough - with parallel tests and such it's not > > necessarily predicable. Even less so when the tests are run against an > > existing cluster. Sorting by name would probably be better... > > It's arguably more user-friendly, too, although part of me feels like > it would be better to try to preserve the topological ordering in some > way. If something cascades to foo and from there to bar and from > there to baz to and from there to quux, emitting the messages as > > drop cascades to bar > drop cascades to baz > drop cascades to foo > drop cascades to quux > > is arguably not going to be too helpful to the user in understanding > the chain of events, however nice it may be for regression testing > purposes.
I'm not sure that's going to easily be better - won't the oid order in turn determine the topological order. Which then again isn't very easy to understand for users. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
