Subject: Re: Question on pg_cron

From: Ron Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 12:23:22 -0400

On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 5:31 AM yudhi s <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> We have around 10 different partition tables for which the partition
> maintenance is done using pg_partman extension. These tables have foreign
> key dependency between them.  We just called partman.run_maintanance_proc()
> through pg_cron without any parameters and it was working fine. So we can
> see only one entry in the cron.job table. And it runs daily once.
>
> It was all working fine and we were seeing the historical partition being
> dropped and new partitions being created without any issue. But suddenly we
> started seeing, its getting failed with error "ERROR: can not drop
> schema1.tab1_part_p2023_12_01 because other objects depend on it"
>

Have you changed version lately of PG, pg_cron or pg_partman?  Or maybe
what pg_cron or pg_partman depends on?

---

From: yudhi s <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2024 22:04:48 +0530

> what pg_cron or pg_partman depends on?

No version change, but we updated the part_config to set premake from 30 to
60 for all the tables. But not sure how that impacted this behavior.

However, do you think, we should better control the order of execution
rather letting postgres to decide it's own, considering there is no such
parameters for this ordering in part_config? And in that case which
approach should we use out of the two i mentioned. Or any other strategies,
should we follow, please advise?

---

From: sud <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 11:57:11 +0530

On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 10:05 PM yudhi s <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>> It was all working fine and we were seeing the historical partition
>>> being dropped and new partitions being created without any issue. But
>>> suddenly we started seeing, its getting failed with error "ERROR: can not
>>> drop schema1.tab1_part_p2023_12_01 because other objects depend on it"
>>>
>>
> No version change, but we updated the part_config to set premake from 30
> to 60 for all the tables. But not sure how that impacted this behavior.
>

 I believe, You should log this as an issue in the pg_partman open source
project.