On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 12:22 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 03:02:30PM -0400, Corey Huinker wrote: > I'm looking into this.
I have begun looking at this before you had sent this reply, and we are handling the base type of a domain in an incorrect way, assuming that for attribute and extended stats we should just always check for TYPTYPE_[MULTI]RANGE, but domains don't map with that at all. I think that we are missing an extra getBaseType(), like [multi]range_typanalyze(), where we use a [multi]range_get_typcache() to cope with domains (getBaseTypeAndTypmod() does the job in the typcache). That's also mentioned in the code.
And the same can be said for expressions in extended stats where a domain that has a [multi]range type is involved. We would be better getting rid of these hardcoded TYPTYPE values, IMO.
Spoiler: the tests are boring, still required. And fortunately, the only damage is stats data not restored but skipped. Annoying, but not as annoying as in the class of problems labelled like "I corrupt the catalogs".
What do you think? -- Michael
Here's what I was just about to post to the list, only to see that you already posted something.
