Feedback-ID: ie3de48e3:Fastmail
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:42:14 +0200
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
To: Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
Cc: Keith Paskett <keith.paskett@logansw.com>,
	pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_restore error with partitioned table having exclude constraint
Message-ID: <202504280842.2jaxgkldoap2@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <ME0P300MB04459912DFAA3BEC7215C0BEB6852@ME0P300MB0445.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202504280842.2jaxgkldoap2%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2025-Apr-24, Japin Li wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 17:18, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
> > On 2025-Apr-17, Japin Li wrote:
> >
> >> It seems PG 16 does not support exclusion constraints on
> >> partitioned tables.
> >
> > Yeah, my recollection is that they were purposefully disallowed
> > (mainly because I didn't want to research how to fully make them
> > work when adding local partitioned indexes), and that we needed to
> > do more work if we wanted to let them through.  I suspect commit
> > 8c852ba9a4 was mistaken to allow that case without looking for
> > further implications.
> 
> Sorry, I’m unclear on “more work.” Can you explain further?

Well, there are no tests in the patch.  8c852ba9a434 added some, but
it's now clear that something was overlooked.  I think this patch should
make more of an effort to cover all interesting cases in regression
tests if there are holes in coverage; and also add something to verify
that pg_dump and pg_upgrade work correctly for these constraints.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Si quieres ser creativo, aprende el arte de perder el tiempo"