From: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
To: feichanghong <feichanghong@qq.com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #18371: There are wrong constraint residues when detach hash partiton concurrently
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2025 20:35:36 +0200
Message-ID: <202510111834.yxmra6mxo5zp@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202407151935.jzia4tm6j3kj@alvherre.pgsql>
On 2024-Jul-15, alvherre wrote:
> We should definitely not have this constraint on hash-partition tables
> after the detach. However, I wonder if instead of adding it and later
> removing it as you propose, it wouldn't be better to just not add it in
> the first place. As a first step, I tried commenting out and found that
> no interesting test fails (only alter_table.sql fails but only because
> the constraint is not there when looking for it specifically.)
Pushed a fix for this per report in
https://postgr.es/m/19070-781326347ade7c57@postgresql.org
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
<Schwern> It does it in a really, really complicated way
<crab> why does it need to be complicated?
<Schwern> Because it's MakeMaker.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@kurilemu.de, feichanghong@qq.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18371: There are wrong constraint residues when detach hash partiton concurrently
In-Reply-To: <202510111834.yxmra6mxo5zp@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox