On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 at 12:35, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 at 09:00, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 21, 2025 1:31 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 at 17:31, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 10:31 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Attached patch has the fix for this issue which includes the
> > > > > partition tables also for the publication now and throws a warning
> > > > > appropriately.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The corresponding query (see "To find which tables might potentially
> > > > include non-local origins .." on [1]) on the create_subscription doc
> > > > page.
> > >
> > > > BTW, the proposed fix is not backpatcheable as it changes the catalog
> > > > which requires catversion bump. However, as this is a WARNING case, if
> > > > we can't find a fix that can't be backpatched, we can fix it in
> > > > HEAD-only.
> > >
> > > I could not find a way to fix the back version without changing the catalog
> > > version.
> > >
> > > The attached v3 version has the changes for the same.
> >
> > Thanks for the patch.
> >
> > I agree that covering the partitioned table case when checking the non-local
> > origin data on publisher is an improvement. But I think adding or extending the
> > SQL functions may not be the appropriate way to fix because the new functions
> > cannot be used in older PG version and is also not backpatchable.
> >
> > I am thinking it would be better to use the existing pg_partition_ancestors()
> > and pg_partition_tree() to verify the same, which can be used in all supported
> > PG versions and is also backpatchable.
> >
> > And here is another version which fixed the issue like that. I have not added
> > tests for it, but I think it's doable to write the something like the testcases
> > provided by Sergey. This patch does not fix the foreign tabel as that seems to
> > be a separate issue which can be fixed independtly.
> >
> > Hi Sergey, if you have the time, could you please verify whether this patch
> > resolves the partition issue you reported? I've confirmed that it passes the
> > partitioned tests in the scripts, but I would appreciate your confirmation for
> > the same.
>
> Hi Hou-san,
>
> I tested the patch, and it is working fine on HEAD.
> I also tried to apply the patches to back branches PG17 and PG 16. But
> the patch does not apply.
>
> This 'origin' option was added in PG 16. So, this patch will not be
> required for PG 15 and back branches.
>
I have created a patch which applies to both PG17 and PG 16. The
v6-0002 is the test patch. It applies to all the branches (HEAD, PG17,
PG16) correctly.
Thanks and Regards,
Shlok Kyal