Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:26:35 +0100
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>
Cc: Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com>, 
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in detaching a partition with a foreign key.
Message-ID: <202501201526.qvxjk2ptyqop@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAA5RZ0ssXJjOw=gPK_7rmFVGrdyWHVdSbPvib69DsCPxs8Cs7w@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202501201526.qvxjk2ptyqop%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2025-Jan-20, Sami Imseih wrote:

> Below is the repro I used. Similar as you original repro,
> but without subpartition on foo_p0. This also results in the segfault
> with your attached patch.

I think the issue in Amul's patch is just that the list was not
initialized to NIL.

Other than the lack of comments, which I'm in the process of writing,
the initial patch Amul submitted seems largely correct to me, in my
understanding of the situation.  I'll throw in a few tests, hoping that
it'll prove correct, and if so then I'll get it pushed soon.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"El hombre nunca sabe de lo que es capaz hasta que lo intenta" (C. Dickens)