Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Although I've not done anything about it here, I'm not happy about the >> handling of dependencies for stats objects.
> Here are two patches regarding handling of dependencies. Oh, sorry --- I already pushed something about this. > The first one > implements your first suggestion: add a NORMAL dependency on each > column, and do away with RemoveStatisticsExt. This works well and > should uncontroversial. No, I wanted an AUTO dependency there, for exactly the reason you mention: > If we only do this, then DROP TABLE needs to say CASCADE if there's a > statistics object in the table. I don't think we really want that, do we? A stats object can't be of any value if the underlying table is gone. Perhaps that calculus would change for cross-table stats but I don't see why. > This seems pointless to me, so the > second patch throws in an additional dependency on the table as a whole, > AUTO this time, so that if the table is dropped, the statistics goes > away without requiring cascade. There is no point in forcing CASCADE > for this case, ISTM. This works well too, but I admit there might be > resistance to doing it. OTOH this is how CREATE INDEX works. Uh, no it isn't. Indexes have auto dependencies on the individual columns they index, and *not* on the table as a whole. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers