| From: | Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #18541: Reattaching a partition referenced by a foreign key fails with an error |
| Date: | 2024-08-08 14:27:49 |
| Message-ID: | CAHewXNn9osbWTFqoKRz8tHt8xn-vdkiWDanFkekE6-WSV3Ga9Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> 于2024年8月8日周四 06:22写道:
> On 2024-Jul-15, Tender Wang wrote:
>
> > PG Bug reporting form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> 于2024年7月15日周一 21:02写道:
>
> > > The following script:
> > > CREATE TABLE t1 (a int, PRIMARY KEY (a));
> > > CREATE TABLE t (a int, PRIMARY KEY (a), FOREIGN KEY (a) REFERENCES t1)
> > > PARTITION BY LIST (a);
> > > ALTER TABLE t ATTACH PARTITION t1 FOR VALUES IN (1);
>
> I propose to reject this with the attached patch, which I intend to
> backpatch all the way down to 12.
>
> FWIW, it's not the same problem that Jehan-Guillaume described in [1],
> even though the error message being thrown is the same.
>
Thanks for explanation. The attached patch looks good to me.
> [1] https://postgr.es/m/20230705233028.2f554f73@karst
>
>
--
Tender Wang
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-08-08 14:36:26 | Re: BUG #18573: Analyze command consumes several GB of memory - more than analyzed table size |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-08-08 13:07:19 | Re: BUG #18575: Sometimes pg_rewind mistakenly assumes that nothing needs to be done. |