On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Joel Jacobson <j...@gluefinance.com> wrote: > 2011/1/13 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >> Yes, probably. It's certainly possible to have the same linkage occur >> with different deptypes. We don't try hard to avoid dups because they >> don't matter. > > "with different deptypes", yes, but in this case there were two > linkages of the same deptype. > > Just seems a bit strange I only found one such in the entire database, > smells like some kind of bug, but might not be, I dunno, just thought > it was worth investigating a bit, but if you're sure about it I of > course trust you.
Instead of trusting him, you could investigate why it happens. A quick test shows this eliminates both dependencies: drop rule pg_settings_u on pg_settings; It appears that both of the dependencies in question are from that rule and pointing to pg_settings.name, and it looks like that rule mentions the name column of pg_settings twice. With a little further experimentation you can probably tease out whether each of the two mentions produced a separate dependency... my guess is "yes". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
