MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CALdSSPjXtzGM7Uk4fWRwRMXcCczge5uNirPQcYCHKPAWPkp9iQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <31d04a1b-c0cb-4e6f-a344-0db048a3b673@gmail.com>
 <DHMZH5ILXV80.36CLMWXU18J3@gmail.com>
 <414c3430-77a9-438e-9dc0-c66033f6be63@postgrespro.ru>
 <DHURZGPYE4B4.2XG5GT4TQ72U4@gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdvQSmRAHu1BRTVcvgons_Smt0QW+mLP4np=QxG==WyFAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <DHYV404JC894.P813UU2Y36L1@gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfds2NsGvpi4fK-xBDk9S=ZY8FEsG-a3z7m_cRSJhn5GKvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <271ebb35-8d8f-41c3-9d95-5c1e5b416216@gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdt66RjWZnUakTZKk6eQ=xVrscfp9HAg8xXnxjnsgHuF-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALdSSPi9GE8jnLCA4aUP2F5_ax6W9Ccfh_ja0iY6wkX2uUyzDw@mail.gmail.com>
 <DHZMP9TM3U3C.2M1RS15KTDWFE@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <DHZMP9TM3U3C.2M1RS15KTDWFE@gmail.com>
From: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 15:59:22 +0500
Message-ID: 
 <CALdSSPj2t7voOsC+XOra7utm1=bGfwHG1Yk+kvSRAWst0s3fCw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: MERGE PARTITIONS and DEPENDS ON EXTENSION.
To: Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>,
 Dmitry Koval <d.koval@postgrespro.ru>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALdSSPj2t7voOsC%2BXOra7utm1%3DbGfwHG1Yk%2BkvSRAWst0s3fCw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 at 15:58, Matheus Alcantara
<matheusssilv97@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed Apr 22, 2026 at 7:48 AM -03, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> >> +-- An index created directly on a partition has no parent in the partitioned
> >> +-- index tree; merge must ignore such indexes (they disappear with the old
> >> +-- partition).
> >> +CREATE INDEX part_extdep_3_extra_idx ON part_extdep_3(x);
> >> +ALTER TABLE part_extdep MERGE PARTITIONS (part_extdep_merged, part_extdep_3)
> >> +    INTO part_extdep_merged2;
> >> +SELECT relname FROM pg_class
> >> +WHERE relname LIKE 'part_extdep_merged2%idx' ORDER BY relname;
> >
> > Looks like this test is also redundant? This does not test new DEPENDS ON logic.
> >
>
> I think that this test is useful to ensure that we correctly skip such
> indexes created directly on a specific partition. Perhaps we can include
> an ALTER INDEX ... DEPENDS ON for this specific index to make it more
> consistent with the other tests?
>
> --
> Matheus Alcantara
> EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

This test is maybe useful, but this is unrelated to what this thread &
fix is about, for my taste.

-- 
Best regards,
Kirill Reshke