Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 13:29:20 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
	Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>,
	Arne Roland <A.Roland@index.de>,
	"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
	Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>,
	Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)
Message-ID: <202201171629.lsy5orykpjqa@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CALNJ-vQgAroyjsKi4=2UFQiU+NGMNo7GQ1-VO5v_LGNke3GmWg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202201171629.lsy5orykpjqa%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-Jan-17, Zhihong Yu wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 6:26 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
> wrote:

> > On 2022-Jan-17, Amit Langote wrote:

> > The other is suggested by you:
> >
> > > Another thing to consider is that we haven't seen many reports of the
> > > problem (UPDATEs of partitioned PK tables causing DELETEs in
> > > referencing tables), even though it can be possibly very surprising to
> > > those who do run into it.
> >
> > Do nothing in the old branches.

> I think option 2, not backpatching, is more desirable at this stage.

Preliminarly, I tend to agree.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera              Valdivia, Chile  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/