On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 02:21:58PM +0800, feichanghong wrote:
> What I said here is wrong, the constraints on the hash partition will also take
> effect. But this constraint depends on the oid of the parent partition.
Something is weird with the format of the messages you have sent, by
the way.
> Based on the analysis above, should the added constraint for a hash partition
> be dropped after detachment?I have initially implemented this logic
> in the attached patch and added a testcase. I really hope that
> developers can give me some suggestions.
I am not much a fan of relying on ATExecDropConstraint(), where the
logic introduced is a copy-paste of get_constraint_name() to retrieve
the name of the constraint to drop. If any, we ought to rely more on
dropconstraint_internal() instead using the pg_constraint tuple based
on the OID of the constraint, and not do a cross-operation with the
constraint name.
But actually, why do you do a drop of the constraint at all?
DetachAddConstraintIfNeeded() re-adds the constraint as it is, so
instead of re-adding it as-is and then dropping it again, wouldn't it
be better to just *not* re-add to begin with it if we don't need it at
all?
This reproduces down to 14, for what I am assuming is an issue
introduced around 7b357cc6ae55. Alvaro, what do you think?
--
Michael
