On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 11:32 AM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:16 AM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> > On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 2:52 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > > Did you have a misbehaving test for the ATTACH case?
> >
> > Thanks for the response.
>
> Thank you both.
>
> > Yes, I think the following example of ATTACH doesn't work as expected.
>
> Yeah, need the fix for the ATTACH case too.
>
> Couple more things:
>
> * We must invalidate not just the "direct" partitions of the table
> being attached/detached, but also any indirect ones, because all of
> their partition constraints would need to contain (or no longer
> contain) the root parent's partition constraint.
>
> * I think we should lock the partitions before sending the
> invalidation. The ATTACH code already locks the descendents for a
> different purpose, but DETACH doesn't, so the latter needs to be fixed
> to match.
>
> I've updated Alvaro's patch to address these points. Maybe, we should
> also add these cases to the regression and isolation suites?
Apparently, I had posted a version of the patch that didn't even compile.
I have fixed that in the attached and also added regression tests.
Adding this to the next CF.
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
