From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | feichanghong <feichanghong(at)qq(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, alvherre <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #18371: There are wrong constraint residues when detach hash partiton concurrently |
Date: | 2024-03-05 03:13:08 |
Message-ID: | ZeaNxNW4m2106fSk@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 02:21:58PM +0800, feichanghong wrote:
> What I said here is wrong, the constraints on the hash partition will also take
> effect. But this constraint depends on the oid of the parent partition.
Something is weird with the format of the messages you have sent, by
the way.
> Based on the analysis above, should the added constraint for a hash partition
> be dropped after detachment?I have initially implemented this logic
> in the attached patch and added a testcase. I really hope that
> developers can give me some suggestions.
I am not much a fan of relying on ATExecDropConstraint(), where the
logic introduced is a copy-paste of get_constraint_name() to retrieve
the name of the constraint to drop. If any, we ought to rely more on
dropconstraint_internal() instead using the pg_constraint tuple based
on the OID of the constraint, and not do a cross-operation with the
constraint name.
But actually, why do you do a drop of the constraint at all?
DetachAddConstraintIfNeeded() re-adds the constraint as it is, so
instead of re-adding it as-is and then dropping it again, wouldn't it
be better to just *not* re-add to begin with it if we don't need it at
all?
This reproduces down to 14, for what I am assuming is an issue
introduced around 7b357cc6ae55. Alvaro, what do you think?
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-03-05 03:20:38 | Re: BUG #18375: requested statistics kind "f" is not yet built for statistics object 16722 |
Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2024-03-05 01:09:55 | Re: BUG #18375: requested statistics kind "f" is not yet built for statistics object 16722 |