From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #18500: Detaching a partition with an index manually attached to the parent's index triggers Assert |
Date: | 2024-06-29 19:10:33 |
Message-ID: | b9480f50a017ecc54923fba3e47059137333d630.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Sat, 2024-06-29 at 19:56 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2024-Jun-29, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> > My example that triggered this assert runs just fine on v16.
>
> Well, in a build without assertions enabled then yes it doesn't crash.
> But if you do have asserts enabled in 16, it does crash.
>
> > So while an error is clearly better than a crash, that would constitute
> > a regression. Is that really unavoidable? It would be very unfortunate
> > if the only way to detach a partition would be to drop some indexes first...
>
> The error would not occur on detach, but on attach, and it'd be intended
> to prevent an inconsistent situation. I'm proposing that on older
> branches we do what Tender proposed elsewhere, namely to cope with the
> detach without crashing (and without leaving inconsistent catalog state,
> such as bogus coninhcount values).
I should have read more closely, sorry. That's great then; sorry for the noise.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Francisco Olarte | 2024-06-30 09:52:59 | Re: LibPQ doesn't say host=* translates to localhost |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-06-29 17:56:44 | Re: BUG #18500: Detaching a partition with an index manually attached to the parent's index triggers Assert |