Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.400.21\))
Subject: Re: Fix SPLIT PARTITION bound-overlap bug and other improvements
From: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPpHfduDPA1vqhrSgLwmGY5+wVsrmK2AKsPQ2rZa_=QAn-y_XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2026 14:28:43 +0800
Cc: Dmitry Koval <d.koval@postgrespro.ru>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4AEA11EB-0439-401B-996E-F1835F510E8D@gmail.com>
References: <C18878AB-DEB2-4A61-9995-A035DD644B81@gmail.com>
 <4df20e70-a083-4334-9548-5f8b9025847c@postgrespro.ru>
 <D4A592C8-76F4-41A4-9746-2FED6BED625A@gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdvdevTMpjQe09aWdK_nbrE4+M1z09H2SUe3bgxY3_QUdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <C0F7F893-D33E-4698-938E-612D08305CF6@gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdsLnD3NGnPC32oeg4ZWWX441M=SfH0-7bG652G40TpEEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4B04275C-E044-4EEE-BE64-6FEEE73DCBB0@gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfduMLJkOSguaKhm4PEWRYHqqvFDX6bu5+E_LSxuy5YjPEw@mail.gmail.com>
 <09307DC2-64A1-4D6A-9EAF-9A86A173A7FC@gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdvn=hPrtMjtvJU-7=HR69ZWDvy2pTE9Prau-dgp5Ua0Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8204A871-4650-4B3F-8260-8D5FD40908B3@gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfduDPA1vqhrSgLwmGY5+wVsrmK2AKsPQ2rZa_=QAn-y_XQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4AEA11EB-0439-401B-996E-F1835F510E8D%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


> On May 20, 2026, at 14:19, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Hi, Chao!
>=20
> On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:37=E2=80=AFAM Chao Li =
<li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 19, 2026, at 19:00, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 5:50=E2=80=AFAM Chao Li =
<li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 18, 2026, at 20:04, Alexander Korotkov =
<aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 2:57=E2=80=AFPM Chao Li =
<li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> =
<v3-0003-Clarify-SPLIT-PARTITION-bound-requirements-in-doc.patch><v3-0001-=
Fix-SPLIT-PARTITION-range-bound-validation-with-D.patch><v3-0002-Fix-SPLIT=
-PARTITION-hint-for-DEFAULT-partition-bo.patch><v3-0004-Reject-degenerate-=
SPLIT-PARTITION-with-DEFAULT-pa.patch>
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> v3-0001 through v3-0003 look good to me.
>>>>>>=20
>>>>>> For v3-0004, I have a suspicion, but it's late here and my brain =
is getting slow, so I would like to study it more tomorrow.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Sure, take your time.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> ------
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alexander Korotkov
>>>>> Supabase
>>>>=20
>>>> My suspicion was that check_split_partition_not_same_bound() now =
has two paths. The RANGE path honors collation, while the LIST path does =
not. So I spent some time creating a test that uses a case-insensitive =
collation:
>>>> ```
>>>> evantest=3D# create collation case_insensitive (provider=3Dicu, =
locale=3D'und-u-ks-level2', deterministic =3D false);
>>>> CREATE COLLATION
>>>> evantest=3D# create table t (b text collate case_insensitive) =
partition by list (b);
>>>> CREATE TABLE
>>>> evantest=3D# create table tp_ab partition of t for values in ('a', =
'b');
>>>> CREATE TABLE
>>>> evantest=3D# alter table t split partition tp_ab into
>>>> evantest-#   (partition tp_a for values in ('a', 'A'),
>>>> evantest(#   partition tp_default default);
>>>> ERROR:  cannot split partition "tp_ab" only to add a DEFAULT =
partition
>>>> LINE 2:   (partition tp_a for values in ('a', 'A'),
>>>>                    ^
>>>> DETAIL:  The non-DEFAULT partition would keep the same partition =
bound.
>>>> HINT:  Use CREATE TABLE ... PARTITION OF ... DEFAULT to add a =
DEFAULT partition.
>>>> ```
>>>>=20
>>>> In this test, the split partition=E2=80=99s bound is ('a', 'b'), =
and the new partition=E2=80=99s bound is ('a', 'A'). Their list lengths =
are both 2, but the two bounds are actually different, because 'a' and =
'A' are considered equal by the collation.
>>>>=20
>>>> So, in the LIST path, since check_partition_bounds_for_split_list() =
has already ensured that the new partition=E2=80=99s bound is contained =
within the split partition=E2=80=99s bound, we need to check the reverse =
direction as well. Whether the split partition=E2=80=99s bound is also =
contained in the new partition=E2=80=99s bound. If yes, the two bounds =
are identical.
>>>>=20
>>>> See the attached v4 for my changes for 0004. 0001-0003 are =
unchanged. Since 0001 and 0003 are independent of 0004, maybe they can =
be pushed first.
>>>=20
>>> I've pushed 0001-0003.
>>=20
>> Thanks for pushing them.
>>=20
>>> Thank you for discovering the collation issue
>>> in 0004.  Note that original approach of using
>>> partition_bounds_equal() can't handle different collations too (as =
it
>>> internally uses datumIsEqual()).
>>=20
>> Yes, I realized that while reviewing v3. That=E2=80=99s reason I =
didn=E2=80=99t get back v2 and only worked again based on v3.
>>=20
>>> I've revised the remaining patch:
>>> made function header comment a bit more detailed
>>=20
>> This part looks good to me.
>>=20
>>> and added additional
>>> regression tests.  Please, check.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> But I don=E2=80=99t see any change for regression test between v4 and =
v5. Maybe you forgot to save your changes?
>=20
> Sorry, I just mess up, no changes in tests.
> I'm going to push this if no objection.
>=20

No worries. Then v5 looks good to me.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/