Re: BUG #17872: Dropping an attribute of a composite type breaks indexes over the type silently

Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 27.03.2023 21:20, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm ... really? I'd just concluded that a partitioned table is okay
>> as long as it doesn't yet have any partitions. Even if the modified
>> type is a partitioning column, there's no structure yet that could
>> depend on the contents of the type. (If it does have partitions,
>> we'll fail when we get to one of those.)

> The following query leads to a failure on showing a partition definition:
> CREATE TABLE tbl(a int, b int) PARTITION BY LIST ((tbl));
> CREATE TABLE tblp PARTITION OF tbl FOR VALUES IN ('(2,4)');
> ALTER TABLE tbl ALTER COLUMN a TYPE char(5);

Sure, but there you already have a partition. If you only had "tbl"
then there would be no stored partition bounds.

regards, tom lane