Re: MERGE PARTITIONS and DEPENDS ON EXTENSION.

From: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Matheus Alcantara <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Koval <d(dot)koval(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: MERGE PARTITIONS and DEPENDS ON EXTENSION.
Date: 2026-04-22 10:59:22
Message-ID: CALdSSPj2t7voOsC+XOra7utm1=bGfwHG1Yk+kvSRAWst0s3fCw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 at 15:58, Matheus Alcantara
<matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed Apr 22, 2026 at 7:48 AM -03, Kirill Reshke wrote:
> >> +-- An index created directly on a partition has no parent in the partitioned
> >> +-- index tree; merge must ignore such indexes (they disappear with the old
> >> +-- partition).
> >> +CREATE INDEX part_extdep_3_extra_idx ON part_extdep_3(x);
> >> +ALTER TABLE part_extdep MERGE PARTITIONS (part_extdep_merged, part_extdep_3)
> >> + INTO part_extdep_merged2;
> >> +SELECT relname FROM pg_class
> >> +WHERE relname LIKE 'part_extdep_merged2%idx' ORDER BY relname;
> >
> > Looks like this test is also redundant? This does not test new DEPENDS ON logic.
> >
>
> I think that this test is useful to ensure that we correctly skip such
> indexes created directly on a specific partition. Perhaps we can include
> an ALTER INDEX ... DEPENDS ON for this specific index to make it more
> consistent with the other tests?
>
> --
> Matheus Alcantara
> EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

This test is maybe useful, but this is unrelated to what this thread &
fix is about, for my taste.

--
Best regards,
Kirill Reshke

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matheus Alcantara 2026-04-22 11:05:47 Re: MERGE PARTITIONS and DEPENDS ON EXTENSION.
Previous Message Matheus Alcantara 2026-04-22 10:58:06 Re: MERGE PARTITIONS and DEPENDS ON EXTENSION.