Re: [BUG] Fix DETACH with FK pointing to a partitioned table fails - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From tender wang
Subject Re: [BUG] Fix DETACH with FK pointing to a partitioned table fails
Date
Msg-id CAHewXNmA88kB0sYYVmdozfdhqad4ADM5sRt1hussFiy0rm1Y1A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [BUG] Fix DETACH with FK pointing to a partitioned table fails  (Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>)
Responses Re: [BUG] Fix DETACH with FK pointing to a partitioned table fails
List pgsql-hackers
Hi
   Is there any conclusion to this issue?

Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com> 于2023年8月10日周四 23:03写道:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:02:43 +0200
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:

> On 2023-Aug-03, tender wang wrote:
>
> > I think  old "sub-FK" should not be dropped, that will be violates foreign
> > key constraint. 
>
> Yeah, I've been playing more with the patch and it is definitely not
> doing the right things.  Just eyeballing the contents of pg_trigger and
> pg_constraint for partitions added by ALTER...ATTACH shows that the
> catalog contents are inconsistent with those added by CREATE TABLE
> PARTITION OF.

Well, as stated in my orignal message, at the patch helps understanding the
problem and sketch a possible solution. It definitely is not complete.

After DETACHing the table, we surely needs to check everything again and
recreating what is needed to keep the FK consistent.

But should we keep the FK after DETACH? Did you check the two other discussions
related to FK, self-FK & partition? Unfortunately, as Tender experienced, the
more we dig the more we find bugs. Moreover, the second one might seems
unsolvable and deserve a closer look. See:

* FK broken after DETACHing referencing part
  https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230420144344.40744130%40karst
* Issue attaching a table to a partitioned table with an  auto-referenced
  foreign key
  https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230707175859.17c91538%40karst

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: ResourceOwner refactoring
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: trying again to get incremental backup