Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)

On 2022-Jan-06, Amit Langote wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 7:27 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:

> > I have pushed it thinking that we would not backpatch any of this fix.
> > However, after running the tests and realizing that I didn't need an
> > initdb for either patch, I wonder if maybe the whole series *is*
> > backpatchable.
>
> We do lack help from trigger.c in the v12 branch in that there's no
> Trigger.tgisclone, which is used in a couple of places in the fix. I
> haven't checked how big of a deal it would be to back-port
> Trigger.tgisclone to v12, but maybe that's doable.

Yeah, I realized afterwards that we added tgparentid in 13 only
(b9b408c48), so we should only backpatch to that.

> > There is one possible problem, which is that psql and pg_dump would need
> > testing to verify that they work decently (i.e. no crash, no
> > misbehavior) with partitioned tables created with the original code.
>
> I suppose you mean checking if the psql and pg_dump after applying
> *0001* work sanely with partitioned tables defined without 0001?

Yes.

> Will test that.

I looked at the backpatch at the last minute yesterday. The tablecmds.c
conflict is easy to resolve, but the one in pg_dump.c is a giant
conflict zone that I didn't have time to look closely :-(

--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/