Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> This patch appears seriously broken, in particular every routine I >> looked at contained incorrect locking assumptions. Nor do I care >> for using pg_depend for the purposes it's being used for here.
> OK, how do we proceed? Revert or apply a second patch? I'd say revert; the patch is going to need significant rework. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match