Re: Killing off removed rels properly - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Killing off removed rels properly
Date
Msg-id 3582657.1676910808@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Killing off removed rels properly  (Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Killing off removed rels properly
List pgsql-hackers
Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com> writes:
> After this change the following query triggers an assert:

> CREATE TABLE tt (tid integer PRIMARY KEY) PARTITION BY LIST (tid);
> CREATE TABLE ttp PARTITION OF tt DEFAULT;
> CREATE TABLE st (sid integer);

> MERGE INTO tt USING st ON tt.tid = st.sid WHEN NOT MATCHED THEN INSERT 
> VALUES (st.sid);

Hmph.  Yeah, I think that's just wrong: the cases of found-a-baserel
and didn't-find-a-baserel should be treating MERGE-rejection identically.
This is probably broken even before e9a20e451.

Thanks for the report!

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: add PROCESS_MAIN to VACUUM
Next
From: "Imseih (AWS), Sami"
Date:
Subject: Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum