Dimitri Fontaine writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Hence, proposed patch attached (which also improves some of the related
>> comments).
> +1 on the idea, although I'm not in a position to further review or play
> with the patch today.
Further testing shows that this patch still doesn't make things
Tom Lane writes:
> On further reflection, it seems more in keeping with the coding
> elsewhere in this module to treat this as a distinct dependency type,
> instead of confusing it with a NORMAL dependency. There's no actual
> functional difference at the moment, but more info is better than less
I wrote:
> ... So I'm thinking this recursive call should
> just pass DEPFLAG_NORMAL in all cases:
On further reflection, it seems more in keeping with the coding
elsewhere in this module to treat this as a distinct dependency type,
instead of confusing it with a NORMAL dependency. There's no act
