Re: tablecmds: fix bug where index rebuild loses replica identity on partitions

> On Mar 23, 2026, at 16:41, Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 3:57 PM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 21, 2026, at 18:29, Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2026 at 1:07 PM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Feb 26, 2026, at 14:59, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Jan 28, 2026, at 10:49, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Jan 27, 2026, at 16:30, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Jan 27, 2026, at 15:59, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Jan 27, 2026, at 15:39, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 01:13:32PM +0800, Chao Li wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> I found this bug while working on a related patch [1].
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> When ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN TYPE causes an index rebuild, and
> > >>>>>>>> that index is used as REPLICA IDENTITY on a partitioned table, the
> > >>>>>>>> replica identity marking on partitions can be silently lost after the
> > >>>>>>>> rebuild.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I am slightly confused by the tests included in the proposed patch.
> > >>>>>>> On HEAD, if I undo the proposed changes of tablecmds.c, the tests
> > >>>>>>> pass. If I run the tests of the patch with the changes of
> > >>>>>>> tablecmds.c, the tests also pass.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Oops, that isn’t supposed to be so. I’ll check the test.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Okay, I see the problem is here:
> > >>>>> ```
> > >>>>> +CREATE UNIQUE INDEX test_replica_identity_partitioned_pkey ON test_replica_identity_partitioned (id);
> > >>>>> ```
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I missed to add column “val” into the index, so that alter type of val didn’t cause index rebuild.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Ideally, it’s better to also verify that index OIDs should have changed before and after alter column type, but I haven’t figured out how to do so. Do you have an idea?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I just updated the test to store index OIDs before and after rebuild into 2 temp tables, so that we can compare the OIDs to verify rebuild happens and replica identity preserved.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I tried to port the test to master branch, and the test failed. From the test diff file, we can see replica identity lost on 3 leaf partitions:
> > >>>> ```
> > >>>> @@ -360,9 +360,9 @@
> > >>>> ORDER BY b.index_name;
> > >>>> index_name | rebuilt | ri_lost
> > >>>> ---------------------------------------------------+---------+---------
> > >>>> - test_replica_identity_partitioned_p1_id_val_idx | t | f
> > >>>> - test_replica_identity_partitioned_p2_1_id_val_idx | t | f
> > >>>> - test_replica_identity_partitioned_p2_2_id_val_idx | t | f
> > >>>> + test_replica_identity_partitioned_p1_id_val_idx | t | t
> > >>>> + test_replica_identity_partitioned_p2_1_id_val_idx | t | t
> > >>>> + test_replica_identity_partitioned_p2_2_id_val_idx | t | t
> > >>>> test_replica_identity_partitioned_p2_id_val_idx | t | f
> > >>>> test_replica_identity_partitioned_pkey | t | f
> > >>>> (5 rows)
> > >>>> ```
> > >>>>
> > >>>> With this patch, the test passes and all replica identity are preserved.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> PFA v3:
> > >>>> * Enhanced the test.
> > >>>> * A small change in find_partition_replica_identity_indexes(): if we will not update a partition, then unlock it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best regards,
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Chao Li (Evan)
> > >>>> HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
> > >>>> https://www.highgo.com/
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> <v3-0001-tablecmds-fix-bug-where-index-rebuild-loses-repli.patch>
> > >>>
> > >>> The CF asked for a rebase, thus rebased as v4.
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi, I reproduced this with the test case, and the patch appears
> > > to resolve it.
> > >
> > > Some comments on v5:
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your review.
> >
> > >
> > > -- Whether it makes sense to use a single list of pair structs instead
> > > of two parallel OID lists (replicaIdentityIndexOids +
> > > replicaIdentityTableOids) to avoid accidental desync.
> >
> > I don’t think that helps much. The current code of rebuilding index uses two lists changedIndexOids and changedIndexDefs. So, this patch matches the pattern of the existing code.
> >
> > >
> > > -- It would be better to make lock handling in
> > > find_partition_replica_identity_indexes() consistent
> > > (relation_open(..., NoLock) if child is already locked, and avoid
> > > mixed relation_close(..., lockmode)/NoLock behavior).
> >
> > That’s because if we are going to update a partition, then we need to hold the lock on the partition.
>
> There is one locking cleanup in find_partition_replica_identity_indexes().
>
> find_inheritance_children(relId, lockmode) already acquires lockmode on
> every partition it returns, so I think the later relation_open() should use
> NoLock, not lockmode. For the same reason, all relation_close() calls in
> this function should use NoLock as well.
>
> Today the code does:
>
> partRel =relation_open(partRelOid, lockmode);
> ...
> relation_close(partRel, lockmode);
>
> That does not cause a correctness issue, because the lock manager
> reference-counts same-transaction acquisitions, so the lock remains held
> either way. But it is misleading: it suggests that relation_open() is where
> the partition lock is taken, and that the early relation_close(..., lockmode)
> is intentionally releasing it. Neither is actually true here, because the lock
> was already acquired by find_inheritance_children().
>
> So I think this should be adjusted to:
>
> partRel = relation_open(partRelOid, NoLock);
>
> and all close sites in this function should be:
>
> relation_close(partRel, NoLock);
>
> The comment on the early-close path should also be updated, since it is not
> really unlocking the partition. Something like "No matching partition index;
> just close the relcache entry" would match the actual behavior better.
>

Okay, in find_partition_replica_identity_indexes, we can use NOLOCK to open partitions as they have been locked by find_inheritance_children. But for those partitions that we won’t touch, we still want to unlock them.

PFA v7.

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