Re: (SQL/PGQ) Clean up orphaned properties when dropping a label

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: zengman <zengman(at)halodbtech(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: (SQL/PGQ) Clean up orphaned properties when dropping a label
Date: 2026-06-24 06:32:07
Message-ID: CAExHW5sjx2uWbankLmUDiasCEGGPtcH+8nZtHtyYaRCrLXSb1A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 12:09 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 12.06.26 03:36, zengman wrote:
> >> Thanks for the report and the patch. The fix is on the right track. I
> >> changed a few things as follows
> >> a. we usually add operands to the same operator at the end, not at the
> >> beginning.
> >> b. create_property_graph.sql, which tests all property graph DDLs, is
> >> the right place to add these tests. graph_table.sql tests graph query.
> >>
> >> I have used an existing property graph in create_property_graph.sql in
> >> the test. It removes a label from the property graph which has two
> >> properties associated with it, one that gets orphaned and one that
> >> doesn't. We can verify that the orphaned property gets dropped from
> >> the property graph but not the other one by information schema query
> >> outputs later. So didn't add any separate verification step after the
> >> DDL.
> >
> >> Attached patch with those changes.
> >
> > Hi Ashutosh,
> >
> > Thank you for your assistance. This looks better. There is a small problem that
> >
> > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/patch/6848/
> >
> > It seems that a 'rebase' is needed to conduct the test normally. Could you please make some adjustments again?
>
> The most recently posted patch does not apply, and if I apply it
> manually, the code change does not appear to cause any changes in the
> test output. Seemingly, this depends on that some other patches that
> are not shown here? Please clarify.
>

It does conflict with a fix in my branch for issues in [1]. Since
Zengman is the original author of the patch, I was expecting him to
take the minimal reproduction suggested in my patch and provide an
updated patch. But it looks like he didn't get time to do that. I
suggest that we tackle the patches in [1] first and then tackle this
issue.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHg+QDeP=mTHTV48R23zKMy1SBmCKZ_L7-z5zKnYyw+K0x-gCg@mail.gmail.com

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Previous Message Peter Smith 2026-06-24 06:04:27 Re: Support EXCEPT for ALL SEQUENCES publications