|From:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, digoal(at)126(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: BUG #15565: truncate bug with tables which have temp table inherited|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2018/12/25 9:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 09:17:46AM +0000, PG Bug reporting form wrote:
>> create table public.a (id int);
>> create temp table a (like public.a) inherits(public.a);
> This issue is way older than 11.
> A couple of months ago there has been a discussion about mixing
> temporary and permanent tables in a partition tree:
> The conclusion of this time was that we don't want to allow mixing
> relations with different persistencies in the same tree for
> partitions because those rely on relation cache lookups for their
> description (PartitionDesc), however inheritance trees have been able
> to accidently work this way for a long time. This shares a little bit
> of history with this report as partition trees and inheritance share
> the same lookups at pg_inherits.
> So there could be an argument to restrict the definition of
> inheritance trees with trees mixing relation persistencies.
> It is hard to say as well that truncate silently bypasses the
> truncation of a temporary relation from another session if a given
> session wants to truncate a whole tree.
Hmm, why don't we just ignore them like queries do?
|Next Message||Etsuro Fujita||2018-12-25 01:48:05||Re: BUG #15552: Unexpected error in COPY to a foreign table in a transaction|
|Previous Message||Amit Langote||2018-12-25 00:50:32||Re: BUG #15552: Unexpected error in COPY to a foreign table in a transaction|