On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 7:22 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > Okay for the first one, printing the OID sounds like a good idea. > Like Tom, I would prefer keeping the relation name with "(null)" for > the schema name. Or even better, could we just print the OID all the > time? What's preventing us from showing that information in the first > place? And that still looks good to have when debugging issues IMO > for orphaned entries.
I think we should have two different messages, rather than trying to shoehorn things into one message using a fake schema name. > For the second one, I would really wish that we keep the restriction > put in place by a052f6c until we actually figure out how to make the > operation safe in the ways we want it to work because this puts > the catalogs into an inconsistent state for any object type able to > use a temporary schema, like functions, domains etc. for example able > to use "pg_temp" as a synonym for the temp namespace name. And any > connected user is able to do that. So what? > On top of that, except for tables, > these could remain as orphaned entries after a crash, no? Tables, too, although they want have storage any more. But your patch in no way prevents that. It just makes it harder to fix when it does happen. So I see no advantages of it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
