Joachim Wieland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, the attached patch now does it correctly as suggested by Alvaro.

Applied with minor cleanup --- I thought the code for scanning for
dependent relations was unreasonably complicated and created
unpredictable locking order, so I simplified it.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to