Re: Crashes on a partition whose concurrent detach never finished

From: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
To: Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Crashes on a partition whose concurrent detach never finished
Date: 2026-09-22 21:01:04
Message-ID: CAN4CZFObYJsQ5za=O4kOGXYhKp6Zn9OYVMdBk0zwQWmrZ_7-OA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> The issue that the 0001 patch you shared is trying to fix is the same
> one reported upthread

Ops, sorry for missing that, I only read the last few messages in the
thread properly and I didn't realize that it was a known issue. I'll
look into that discussion more.

> 2b) For Non-ALL-TABLES publications, the behavior was already correct;
> the change below is a no-op:

Yes, that part was a cosmetic change to make everything follow the
same approach, I don't think it causes any actual issues.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2026-09-22 21:12:11 Re: Teach pg_upgrade to deal with invalid databases
Previous Message Manu 2026-09-22 20:58:59 Re: Extension security improvement: Add support for extensions with an owned schema