Hey Alberto,
> Besides this specific problem: there are currently multiple active
> threads related to bugs with recursive alter table. I would suggest
> specifically to read through [0], all of it because v19 is very
> different than v1. The patch coming out of that thread partially
> overlaps with this one. It tries to fix properties being lost in
> recursive alter table operations that cause index rebuilds, both
> properties which could be recreated with alter table commands and
> properties which couldn't.
Thanks for the review, and for the suggestion, I'll definitely take a
look at that discussion. At first glance it looks very relevant!
> Maybe a good solution here would be to try and process the tables in the
> opposite order when recreating object than the order in which we deleted
> them? In which case we (possibly) wouldn't even need a new separate
> pass. But I didn't look further into this. What do you think?
This was my original idea. I kind of discarded it originally because
the two pass approach seemed easier to implement with the current
logic, and I didn't want to mess up too much with the code to minimize
potential side effects. But I forgot that multi-level partitions were
a thing, so we might need to go back and revisit that. It definitely
looked like a valid approach too. I'll see if I can come up with
something.
> I forgot to mention: the patch doesn't apply using git am and needs a
> rebase (I applied it using patch -p1 after editing the diff). If you're
> still interested in working on this, please provide a rebased patch, as
> it makes the process smoother :)
Yup! I was aware of that but forgot to update the thread, please find
the rebased versions attached.
Thanks!
Álvaro
