From: | Li Japin <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
Cc: | Keith Paskett <keith(dot)paskett(at)logansw(dot)com>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, songjinzhou <tsinghualucky912(at)foxmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | 回复: pg_restore error with partitioned table having exclude constraint |
Date: | 2025-05-14 11:10:08 |
Message-ID: | ME0P300MB044553E723ED88E4B4C7FC82B691A@ME0P300MB0445.AUSP300.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2025-Apr-30, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2025-Apr-30, Japin Li wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the explanation. A test case has been added to create_index.sql.
>> Could you please take a look?
>
> Well, it seems a bit minimalistic -- I would try to be more adversarial
> about it maybe, because details are where devil(s) lie.
>
> You need to add comments in CompareIndexInfo about your new code. Why
> Is it okay to ignore ii_ExclusionProcs and ii_ExclusionStrats? Why is
> it okay to not have tests that set up tables with those things as
> different so that this function returns false in these cases? Why do
> you have a test for a table set up where the positive case is handled,
> but no case for the negative case?
Apologies for the delay. Considering it further, ignoring ii_ExclusionProcs and
ii_ExclusionStrats seems incorrect given custom operators.
I've also updated ii_NumIndexAttrs to ii_NumIndexKeyAttrs, as exclusion indexes
won't exceed the ii_NumIndexKeyAttrs.
I've also moved the test cases to indexing.sql. I'm unsure of its suitability, but seeing
pg_dump/pg_upgrade tests prompted the move.
--
Regards,
Japin Li
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-restore-partitioned-tables-with-exclude-constraints.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2025-05-14 12:37:36 | BUG #18928: postgres_fdw search_path not reset causing pgbouncer pool_mode=transaction using the wrong schema |
Previous Message | Manav Kumar | 2025-05-14 10:40:14 | Re: Unexpected output of PgRules |