From: | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Subject: | Re: [BUG] Fix DETACH with FK pointing to a partitioned table fails |
Date: | 2024-10-22 14:23:12 |
Message-ID: | 20241022162312.63021cc6@karst |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:50:59 +0200
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> On 2024-Sep-26, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
>
> > REL_14_STABLE backport doesn't seem trivial, so I'll wait for some
> > feedback, review & decision before going further down in backpatching.
>
> Hi, thanks for these patches. I have made some edits of my own. In the
> end I decided that I quite liked the new structure of the
> addFkConstraint() function and friends.
Yes, I especially like the fact that addFkRecurseReferencing() and
addFkRecurseReferenced() have now the same logic/behavior.
> I added a bunch of comments and changed names somewhat.
checked.
> Also, I think the benefit of the refactoring is
> more obvious when all patches are squashed together, so I did that.
OK.
> For branch 14, I opted to make it delete the constraints on detach.
> This isn't ideal but unless somebody wants to spend a lot more time on
> this, it seems the best we can do. Leaving broken constraints around
> seems worse.
Keep that in mind, and move ahead to the next level: self-FK on partitioned
table! ;-)
> […]
>
> I spent some time going through your test additions and ended up with
> your functions in this form:
> […]
>
> However, in the end I think this is a very good technique to verify that
> the fix works correctly, but it's excessive to include these results in
> the tests forevermore. So I've left them out for now. Maybe we should
> reconsider on the older branches?
The point here was to make sure futur work/refactoring don't forget/break
anything in the catalog representation of FK on partitions.
Regards,
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-10-22 14:32:33 | Re: [BUG] Fix DETACH with FK pointing to a partitioned table fails |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2024-10-22 14:19:41 | Re: Row pattern recognition |