On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 7:09 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> writes:
> > Yes, this looks like a bug and your fix seems correct to me. It would
> > be nice to add a test case for this scenario.
>
> A test case doesn't seem that exciting to me. If we were trying to
> make it actually work, then yeah, but throwing an error isn't that
> useful to test. The code will be exercised by replication to a
> regular partitioned table (I assume we do have tests for that).
That's true, but we missed this case because of the absence of the
test case so I thought at least we can add it now to catch any future
bug in case of any behavior change.
> A completely different line of thought is that this doesn't seem
> like a terribly bulletproof fix, since children could get added to
> a partitioned table after we look. Maybe it'd be better to check
> the relkind at the last moment before we do something that depends
> on a child table being a relation.
+1
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
