Hi, Chao!
On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 5:50 AM Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 18, 2026, at 20:04, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 2:57 PM Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
<v3-0003-Clarify-SPLIT-PARTITION-bound-requirements-in-doc.patch><v3-0001-Fix-SPLIT-PARTITION-range-bound-validation-with-D.patch><v3-0002-Fix-SPLIT-PARTITION-hint-for-DEFAULT-partition-bo.patch><v3-0004-Reject-degenerate-SPLIT-PARTITION-with-DEFAULT-pa.patch>
> >>
> >> v3-0001 through v3-0003 look good to me.
> >>
> >> For v3-0004, I have a suspicion, but it's late here and my brain is getting slow, so I would like to study it more
tomorrow.
> >
> > Sure, take your time.
> >
> > ------
> > Regards,
> > Alexander Korotkov
> > Supabase
>
> My suspicion was that check_split_partition_not_same_bound() now has two paths. The RANGE path honors collation,
whilethe LIST path does not. So I spent some time creating a test that uses a case-insensitive collation:
> ```
> evantest=# create collation case_insensitive (provider=icu, locale='und-u-ks-level2', deterministic = false);
> CREATE COLLATION
> evantest=# create table t (b text collate case_insensitive) partition by list (b);
> CREATE TABLE
> evantest=# create table tp_ab partition of t for values in ('a', 'b');
> CREATE TABLE
> evantest=# alter table t split partition tp_ab into
> evantest-# (partition tp_a for values in ('a', 'A'),
> evantest(# partition tp_default default);
> ERROR: cannot split partition "tp_ab" only to add a DEFAULT partition
> LINE 2: (partition tp_a for values in ('a', 'A'),
> ^
> DETAIL: The non-DEFAULT partition would keep the same partition bound.
> HINT: Use CREATE TABLE ... PARTITION OF ... DEFAULT to add a DEFAULT partition.
> ```
>
> In this test, the split partition’s bound is ('a', 'b'), and the new partition’s bound is ('a', 'A'). Their list
lengthsare both 2, but the two bounds are actually different, because 'a' and 'A' are considered equal by the
collation.
>
> So, in the LIST path, since check_partition_bounds_for_split_list() has already ensured that the new partition’s
boundis contained within the split partition’s bound, we need to check the reverse direction as well. Whether the split
partition’sbound is also contained in the new partition’s bound. If yes, the two bounds are identical.
>
> See the attached v4 for my changes for 0004. 0001-0003 are unchanged. Since 0001 and 0003 are independent of 0004,
maybethey can be pushed first.
I've pushed 0001-0003. Thank you for discovering the collation issue
in 0004. Note that original approach of using
partition_bounds_equal() can't handle different collations too (as it
internally uses datumIsEqual()). I've revised the remaining patch:
made function header comment a bit more detailed and added additional
regression tests. Please, check.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
