Re: ATTACH PARTITION seems to ignore column generation status

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?)