| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Haibo Yan <tristan(dot)yim(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mohamed ALi <moali(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Fix: Partitioned parent index remains invalid after child indexes are repaired |
| Date: | 2026-04-22 10:33:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0sQfnLyv2Ta-r6y==QwwUr+M0BxVbK0=0_HZZA1ywc3Bw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > One thing that I'm tempted to add is more scans to check indisvalid
> > across these commands, particularly after the individual ATTACH
> > PARTITION bits on each individual index.
That works.
> > A second thing. Do you think that it would be worth adding a
> > partitioned table that has no leaves in some portion of the test? I
> > was thinking about a partitioned table called idxpart2 attached to
> > idxpart in the first part of the test. I've found this pattern
> > usually useful for this area of the code when recursing with
> > validatePartitionedIndex() from a parent.
Good idea.
> Both things have been added to the tests, and applied the result down
> to v14. The patch was able to apply cleanly across the board, without
> conflicts. That's rare, these days..
Sorry for the late reply, and thanks for getting this committed!
--
Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kirill Reshke | 2026-04-22 10:48:18 | Re: MERGE PARTITIONS and DEPENDS ON EXTENSION. |
| Previous Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2026-04-22 10:02:56 | RE: Skipping schema changes in publication |