Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:43:40 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Philipp Faster <phfaster@gmail.com>
Cc: 
	"pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: How to attach partition with primary key
Message-ID: <202406181443.ykwubo4pecdp@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CALCf7UctU2Kn026e3Qz8+i+0CgH_BGMsMjoOwW1QD5nXysBrTA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202406181443.ykwubo4pecdp%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2024-Jun-18, Philipp Faster wrote:

> I've done a bad job describing my issue in the first place: I left out a
> key definition statement that I thought doesn't play any role in the issue:
> another unique index on the same columns as PK.

I see.  That unique index seems quite useless. Why not just drop it?
That would also solve your problem.

> Interesting thing is that if I define PK before the unique index and then
> drop it and redefine after the unique index, then the code still doesn't
> work. This behaviour smells like a bug on the PostgreSQL side...

Yeah, it sounds like we have a bug in the index-matching code, though
it depends on having a useless, duplicative index.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Selbst das größte Genie würde nicht weit kommen, wenn es
alles seinem eigenen Innern verdanken wollte." (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)
               Ni aún el genio más grande llegaría muy lejos si
                    quisiera sacarlo todo de su propio interior.