Re: DROP OWNED CASCADE vs Temp tables

--jCrbxBqMcLqd4mOl
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 07:45:06PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> This seems fiddly to handle better; maybe you'd have to have a new
> PERFORM_DELETION_* flag that says to ignore "missing" objects; so when
> you go from shdepDropOwned, you pass that flag all the way down to
> doDeletion(), so the objtype-specific function is called with
> "missing_ok", and ignore if the object has already gone away.  That's
> tedious because none of the Remove* functions have the concept of
> missing_ok.

Yes, that would be invasive and I'd rather not backpatch such a change
but I don't see a better or cleaner way to handle that correctly
either than the way you are describing.  Looking at all the
subroutines removing the objects by OID, a patch among those lines is
repetitive, though not complicated to do.
--
Michael

--jCrbxBqMcLqd4mOl
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEG72nH6vTowiyblFKnvQgOdbyQH0FAl4dCRoACgkQnvQgOdby
QH03Uw/6Aubn8HDhvznft2hso0n22Vv1CffJlLk5ttTxT65o6zXkDNdrapDDYLSU
YwnbyB7HeG8AsrdPkuY0SGc9dqWBsJK+l+va+0UovBqr/bJ7Kc3emXgstrw3xnys
aMNx8eXsX23l6EkjPEyKm+cwF5VlmJC7qCh0TvpKbGKY7d9Dc9+gqiNATxU+nCPi
dNNdEza/6FayBfJotkwrXTlZcxr4aoZHrJK6IGEn2evOqY+brV3q67nGJCzdhdjb
vO/phZYxMSTnG1DSA0FWuP5Uxk5wZG+i3c4TMtaZts6jfEzk6ioqNRI/YbpCj4P4
sARDKo6E63UAPhOc808dyX1OXfASVdT2AhrcAQ9t3hudNBoR0Yo8SA2r942/TAvp
NgwwNKFJfki9yclTLhFYCzOjm0ONFInGx/bQz7H8PYGSYZohiHnkfW4ZgKJotu+A
exOTQEAd/l11XSdR0g96NS7surBoHlR02WOCC63YU7+SKoZv8PYHA+hjYIYUQ0wY
EGZI9R0ZNssEl09amBq7Zq50KrW3eaWdbfVgi72hOqjkjXeM10O62/fzs43EZmpR
7dmCjRBzuKkIqtZkbKm09+lUwwj3U1QafASK0gY20aUjlyEd+8WEqo4aZ6blnfrT
6xeBh3d3A9Lnas/smThnEuQEgNOSgaa1OBRW+YFO4y6HdUoHhv0=
=xwmK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jCrbxBqMcLqd4mOl--