Re: [BUG] Unexpected action when publishing partition tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: [BUG] Unexpected action when publishing partition tables
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+3DZCEsChBiMNbqyTkv_R5epu8daJcaNBO0QGSNzkaEQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: [BUG] Unexpected action when publishing partition tables  ("houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>)
Responses RE: [BUG] Unexpected action when publishing partition tables  ("houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 7:15 AM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 14, 2021 10:41 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 11:38 AM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the comment.
> Attach new version patches which clean the table at the end.
>

+ * For partitioned table contained in the publication, we must
+ * invalidate all partitions contained in the respective partition
+ * trees, not just the one explicitly mentioned in the publication.

Can we slightly change the above comment as: "For the partitioned
tables, we must invalidate all partitions contained in the respective
partition hierarchies, not just the one explicitly mentioned in the
publication. This is required because we implicitly publish the child
tables when the parent table is published."

Apart from this, the patch looks good to me.

I think we need to back-patch this till v13. What do you think? If
yes, then can you please prepare and test the patches for
back-branches? Does anyone else have opinions on back-patching this?

I think this is not a show-stopper bug, so even if we decide to
back-patch, I will do it next week after 14 RC1.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Split xlog.c
Next
From: Ranier Vilela
Date:
Subject: Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)