Hello, Álvaro!
On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 10:58 AM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
> Rereading this -- did you mean to propose that a possible fix was to
> remove the "invalid arbiter index list" error? I had understood
> something different.
Yes, it was the initial idea.
> Your idea downthread of changing the way that check works (so that we
> don't throw an error in this case, but we continue to double-check that
> the arbiter list is sensible) sounds reasonable to me. Do you want to
> propose a specific check for it?
I think the next logic is correct:
* for each IS indisvalid arbiter in the parent table we should have AT
LEAST ONE compatible indisvalid pair in the partition (we may have
multiple or a few more ready-only)
* for each NOT indisvalid arbiter in parent - nothing is expected
from partition
I'll try to create a patch with such later.
Best regards,
Mikhail.
