| From: | "Matheus Alcantara" <matheusssilv97(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kirill Reshke" <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Alexander Korotkov" <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "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 10:58:06 |
| Message-ID: | DHZMP9TM3U3C.2M1RS15KTDWFE@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kirill Reshke | 2026-04-22 10:59:22 | Re: MERGE PARTITIONS and DEPENDS ON EXTENSION. |
| Previous Message | Matheus Alcantara | 2026-04-22 10:53:04 | Re: MERGE PARTITIONS and DEPENDS ON EXTENSION. |