Re: BUG #19099: Conditional DELETE from partitioned table with non-updatable partition raises internal error - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 9:58 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 12:07 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 3:25 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> > > >> To summarize, the two approaches we've thought about:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. Executor-side fix
> > > >> (v4-0001-Fix-bogus-ctid-requirement-for-dummy-root-partiti.patch
> > > >> posted with my Nov 8 email):
> > > >>
> > > >> Make ExecInitModifyTable() not require ctid when the only result
> > > >> relation is a dummy partitioned root. This is minimally invasive but
> > > >> leaves EXPLAIN VERBOSE output inconsistent depending on
> > > >> enable_partition_pruning -- with pruning off, you see tableoid but no
> > > >> ctid, while with pruning on, you see ctid. That's confusing for users
> > > >> as mentioned upthread.
> > > >>
> > > >> 2. Planner-side fix
> > > >> (v4-0001-Fix-row-identity-handling-for-dummy-partitioned-r.patch
> > > >> posted with my last email):
> > > >>
> > > >> Don't add tableoid for child relations that don't contribute
> > > >> row-identity columns. This keeps root->row_identity_vars empty when
> > > >> there exists only one such child relation, so
> > > >> distribute_row_identity_vars() can add ctid for the dummy root.
> > > >> EXPLAIN output is consistent regardless of pruning setting.  (Some may
> > > >> notice in the patch that there's still a minor change, but that's due
> > > >> to how explain.c decides whether to print the table name before the
> > > >> column name, which is unrelated to this.)
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm inclined to go with the second approach. The only back-patching
> > > >> concern is that EXPLAIN VERBOSE output order changes (ctid now appears
> > > >> before tableoid). This is cosmetic -- junk columns are looked up by
> > > >> name, not position -- but could affect tests or tools that parse
> > > >> EXPLAIN output by position.
> > > >>
> > > >> If there are no objections, I'll commit patch #2 next week.
> > >
> > > > Tom, do you have any thoughts on the above?
> > >
> > > My apologies, I allowed this thread to fall off my radar.
> > >
> > > Of these two patches, I greatly prefer the executor-side fix.
> > > I think the planner-side fix is much too invasive to consider
> > > back-patching.  Even if it doesn't bother any end users,
> > > it will surely break some extensions' regression tests,
> > > considering how many places it changes in our own tests.
> >
> > Ok, a fair point.
> >
> > > Also, I think the argument about preserving the same generated
> > > tlist is fairly misguided, for two reasons:
> > >
> > > 1. We've never expected that the set of row-identity columns would
> > > be independent of the set of child tables considered.  For example,
> > > different FDWs might produce different sorts of row-ID Vars.
> > >
> > > 2. EXPLAIN's output for a partitioned query is usually different
> > > between pruning-on and pruning-off.  Why's it important that
> > > this tlist detail not be different?
> >
> > Right, the targetlist will look different if a foreign child is pruned
> > vs not anyway. I was maybe too focused on this degenerate case where
> > all children are excluded -- with pruning off you get tableoid but no
> > ctid (because the foreign child was processed before constraint
> > exclusion, leaving root->row_identity_vars non-empty triggering the
> > block in distribute_row_identity_vars() to add ctid), with pruning on
> > you get ctid but no tableoid (because the child was never processed,
> > leaving root->row_identity_vars empty).
> >
> > Because, the degenerate case is a no-op at runtime, maybe we're ok.
> >
> > > So on the whole, I'd do #1 and call it good.  I don't even see an
> > > argument for applying #2 in HEAD only.
> >
> > Ok, I'll post an updated patch for #1 shortly.
>
> Updated patch attached. While reworking it, I realized that
> partitioned tables should only appear in the result relations list
> when all leaf partitions have been pruned. So instead of checking
> nrels > 1, I now Assert(nrels == 1) when we see a partitioned table
> and skip the ctid requirement. Also added a corresponding adjustment
> in ExecModifyTable() to allow invalid ri_RowIdAttNo for partitioned
> tables.

Pushed this now.  Thanks to all.

--
Thanks, Amit Langote