Re: [BUG] Fix DETACH with FK pointing to a partitioned table fails

From: Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(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 02:56:34
Message-ID: CAHewXNkUAXgT4ZZwA0G2sTe_n1Oy9jTZ+VO_0XQ0pGAsVXkDsQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> 于2024年10月22日周二 05:52写道:

> On 2024-Oct-21, Tender Wang wrote:
>
> > I suspect that we don't need the below if
> > statement anymore.
> > /*
> > * If the referenced side is partitioned (which we know because our
> > * parent's constraint points to a different relation than ours) then
> > * we must, in addition to the above, create pg_constraint rows that
> > * point to each partition, each with its own action triggers.
> > */
> > if (parentConForm->conrelid != conform->conrelid)
> > {
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > The above contidion is always true according to my test.
> > I haven't figured out an anti-case.
>
> You're right, this is useless, we can remove the 'if' line. I kept the
> block though, to have a place for all those local variable declarations
> (otherwise the code looks messier than it needs to).
>

Agree.

>
> I also noticed that addFkRecurseReferenced() is uselessly taking a List
> **wqueue argument but doesn't use it, so I removed it (as fallout, other
> routines don't need it either, especially DetachPartitionFinalize). I
> added some commentary on the creation of dependencies in
> addFkConstraint().
>

Yeah, I also noticed this before.

>
> I also include a few other cosmetic changes; just comment layout
> changes.
>
> This time I attach the patch for master only; the others have changed
> identically. 14 is unchanged from before. I figured that the conflict
> from 14 to 13 was trivial to resolve -- it was just because of DETACH
> CONCURRENTLY, so some code moves around, but that's all that happens.
>
>
I don't find any other problems with the newest patch.

--
Thanks,
Tender Wang

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2024-10-22 03:52:15 Re: race condition in pg_class
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2024-10-22 02:54:39 Re: Better error reporting from extension scripts (Was: Extend ALTER OPERATOR)