Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 10:37 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Thank you for looking at this.
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 4:12 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 7:04 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > This shows that the way we've made these triggers behave in general
> > > can cause some unintended behaviors for foreign keys during
> > > cross-partition updates. I started this thread to do something about
> > > that and sent a patch to prevent cross-partition updates at all when
> > > there are foreign keys pointing to it. As others pointed out, that's
> > > not a great long-term solution to the problem, but that's what we may
> > > have to do in the back-branches if anything at all.
> >
> > I've started by reviewing the patch for back-patching that the first
> > patch you posted[1].
> >
> > + for (i = 0; i < trigdesc->numtriggers; i++)
> > + {
> > + Trigger *trigger = &trigdesc->triggers[i];
> > +
> > + if (trigger->tgisinternal &&
> > + OidIsValid(trigger->tgconstrrelid) &&
> > + trigger->tgfoid == F_RI_FKEY_CASCADE_DEL)
> > + {
> > + found = true;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> >
> > IIUC the above checks if the partition table is referenced by a
> > foreign key constraint on another table with ON DELETE CASCADE option.
> > I think we should prevent cross-partition update also when ON DELETE
> > SET NULL and ON DELETE SET DEFAULT. For example, with the patch, a
> > tuple in a partition table is still updated to NULL when
> > cross-partition update as follows:
> >
> > postgres=# create table p (a numeric primary key) partition by list (a);
> > CREATE TABLE
> > postgres=# create table p1 partition of p for values in (1);
> > CREATE TABLE
> > postgres=# create table p2 partition of p for values in (2);
> > CREATE TABLE
> > postgres=# insert into p values (1);
> > INSERT 0 1
> > postgres=# create table q (a int references p(a) on delete set null);
> > CREATE TABLE
> > postgres=# insert into q values (1);
> > INSERT 0 1
> > postgres=# update p set a = 2;
> > UPDATE 1
> > postgres=# table p;
> > a
> > ---
> > 2
> > (1 row)
> >
> > postgres=# table q;
> > a
> > ---
> >
> > (1 row)
>
> Yeah, I agree that's not good.
>
> Actually, I had meant to send an updated version of the patch to apply
> in back-branches that would prevent such a cross-partition update, but
> never did since starting to work on the patch for HEAD. I have
> attached it here.

Thank you for updating the patch!

>
> Regarding the patch, I would have liked if it only prevented the
> update when the foreign key that would be violated by the component
> delete references the update query's main target relation. If the
> foreign key references the source partition directly, then the delete
> would be harmless. However there's not enough infrastructure in v12,
> v13 branches to determine that, which makes back-patching this a bit
> hard. For example, there's no way to tell in the back-branches if the
> foreign-key-enforcing triggers of a leaf partition have descended from
> the parent table. IOW, I am not so sure anymore if we should try to
> do anything in the back-branches.

Hmm I'm not sure the necessity of figuring out foreign-key-enforcing
triggers of a leaf partition have descended from the parent table. I
might be missing something but even if the foreign key references the
leaf partition directly, the same problem could happen if doing a
cross-partition update, is that right?

Also, the updated patch prevents a cross-partition update even when
the foreign key references another column of itself. This kind of
cross-update works as expected for now so it seems not to need to
disallow that. What do you think? The scenario is:

create table p (a int primary key, b int references p(a) on delete
cascade) partition by list (a);
create table p1 partition of p for values in (1);
create table p2 partition of p for values in (2);
insert into p values (1, 1);
update p set a = 2, b = 2 where a = 1;
ERROR: cannot move row being updated to another partition
DETAIL: Moving the row may cause a foreign key involving the source
partition to be violated.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/