| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: ATTACH PARTITION seems to ignore column generation status |
| Date: | 2023-01-09 21:41:05 |
| Message-ID: | 44978.1673300465@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> After thinking about this awhile, I feel that we ought to disallow
> it in the traditional-inheritance case as well. The reason is that
> there are semantic prohibitions on inserting or updating a generated
> column, eg
> regression=# create table t (f1 int, f2 int generated always as (f1+1) stored);
> CREATE TABLE
> regression=# update t set f2=42;
> ERROR: column "f2" can only be updated to DEFAULT
> DETAIL: Column "f2" is a generated column.
> It's not very reasonable to have to recheck that for child tables,
> and we don't. But if one does this:
> regression=# create table pp (f1 int, f2 int);
> CREATE TABLE
> regression=# create table cc (f1 int, f2 int generated always as (f1+1) stored) inherits(pp);
> NOTICE: merging column "f1" with inherited definition
> NOTICE: merging column "f2" with inherited definition
> CREATE TABLE
> regression=# insert into cc values(1);
> INSERT 0 1
> regression=# update pp set f2 = 99 where f1 = 1;
> UPDATE 1
> regression=# table cc;
> f1 | f2
> ----+----
> 1 | 99
> (1 row)
> That is surely just as broken as the partition-based case.
So what we need is about like this. This is definitely not something
to back-patch, since it's taking away what had been a documented
behavior. You could imagine trying to prevent such UPDATEs instead,
but I judge it not worth the trouble. If anyone were actually using
this capability we'd have heard bug reports.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| disallow-generated-child-columns-2.patch | text/x-diff | 7.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-01-09 21:43:08 | Re: Reducing the WAL overhead of freezing in VACUUM by deduplicating per-tuple freeze plans |
| Previous Message | Melanie Plageman | 2023-01-09 21:10:47 | Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?) |