From: Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com>
Cc: Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Cc: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Fix DETACH with FK pointing to a partitioned table fails
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:23:12 +0200
Message-ID: <20241022162312.63021cc6@karst> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202410181450.xchtzcq2uyjt@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20240926104835.07ae9ab5@karst>
<202410181450.xchtzcq2uyjt@alvherre.pgsql>
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 16:50:59 +0200
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> On 2024-Sep-26, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
>
> > REL_14_STABLE backport doesn't seem trivial, so I'll wait for some
> > feedback, review & decision before going further down in backpatching.
>
> Hi, thanks for these patches. I have made some edits of my own. In the
> end I decided that I quite liked the new structure of the
> addFkConstraint() function and friends.
Yes, I especially like the fact that addFkRecurseReferencing() and
addFkRecurseReferenced() have now the same logic/behavior.
> I added a bunch of comments and changed names somewhat.
checked.
> Also, I think the benefit of the refactoring is
> more obvious when all patches are squashed together, so I did that.
OK.
> For branch 14, I opted to make it delete the constraints on detach.
> This isn't ideal but unless somebody wants to spend a lot more time on
> this, it seems the best we can do. Leaving broken constraints around
> seems worse.
Keep that in mind, and move ahead to the next level: self-FK on partitioned
table! ;-)
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20230707175859.17c91538%40karst#0dc7b8afd8b780899021bbb07...> […]
>
> I spent some time going through your test additions and ended up with
> your functions in this form:
> […]
>
> However, in the end I think this is a very good technique to verify that
> the fix works correctly, but it's excessive to include these results in
> the tests forevermore. So I've left them out for now. Maybe we should
> reconsider on the older branches?
The point here was to make sure futur work/refactoring don't forget/break
anything in the catalog representation of FK on partitions.
Regards,
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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: jgdr@dalibo.com, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, tndrwang@gmail.com, zhjwpku@gmail.com, exclusion@gmail.com, guillaume@lelarge.info, michael@paquier.xyz
Subject: Re: [BUG] Fix DETACH with FK pointing to a partitioned table fails
In-Reply-To: <20241022162312.63021cc6@karst>
* 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