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