[HACKERS] Possible bug in pg_settings/pg_depend
Are multiple identical entires in pg_depend possible? If so, how do they occur, and what is the purpose of representing exactly the same dependency two times in pg_depend? I expected the following query not to return any rows, but it did: glue=# select count(*), * from pg_depend group by classid, objid, objsubid, refclassid, refobjid, refobjsubid, deptype having count(*) 1; count | classid | objid | objsubid | refclassid | refobjid | refobjsubid | deptype ---+-+---+--++--+-+- 2 |2618 | 11015 |0 | 1259 |11012 | 1 | n (1 row) Debug data: glue=# select version(); version - PostgreSQL 9.1alpha3 on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3, 64-bit (1 row) glue=# select pg_describe_object(2618,11015,0); pg_describe_object rule pg_settings_u on view pg_settings (1 row) glue=# select pg_describe_object(1259,11012,1); pg_describe_object -- view pg_settings column name (1 row) -- Best regards, Joel Jacobson Glue Finance -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Possible bug in pg_settings/pg_depend
Joel Jacobson j...@gluefinance.com writes: Are multiple identical entires in pg_depend possible? 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. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Possible bug in pg_settings/pg_depend
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. -- Best regards, Joel Jacobson Glue Finance E: j...@gluefinance.com T: +46 70 360 38 01 Postal address: Glue Finance AB Box 549 114 11 Stockholm Sweden Visiting address: Glue Finance AB Birger Jarlsgatan 14 114 34 Stockholm Sweden -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Possible bug in pg_settings/pg_depend
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
