Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 08:46:25 +0100
From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: unsupportable composite type partition keys
Message-ID: <20200201074625.GA40017@nol>
References: 
 <CA+HiwqFUzjfj9HEsJtYWcr1SgQ_=iCAvQ=O2Sx6aQxoDu4OiHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5361.1576602769@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+HiwqGiGBgFFcL6YGKRqfX1-gYKmuLLG_JwU_UaSaX2J+jehQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <28160.1576676326@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+HiwqENLY2ta0goA0jcfk4cWdj2W0r6Ywjf=PQiMpJkyXygmg@mail.gmail.com>
 <26766.1576947735@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <7782.1577051475@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAOBaU_aBWqNweiGUFX0guzBKkcfJ8mnnyyGC_KBQmO12Mj5f_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <23583.1580505636@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <23583.1580505636@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 04:20:36PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 10:51 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> While poking at this, I also started to wonder why CheckAttributeType
> >> wasn't recursing into ranges, since those are our other kind of
> >> container type.  And the answer is that it must, because we allow
> >> creation of ranges over composite types:
> 
> > While working on regression tests for index collation versioning [1],
> > I noticed that the 2nd patch apparently broke the ability to create a
> > table using a range over collatable datatype attribute, which we
> > apparently don't test anywhere.
> 
> Ugh.
> 
> > AFAICT, this is only a thinko in CheckAttributeType(), where the range
> > collation should be provided rather than the original tuple desc one,
> > as per attached.  I also added a create/drop table in an existing
> > regression test that was already creating range over collatable type.
> 
> Looks good, although I think maybe we'd better test the case a little
> harder than this.  Will tweak that and push -- thanks!

Ah, I wasn't sure that additional tests on a table would be worthwhile enough.
Thanks for tweaking and pushing!