On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 07:07:59AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> One thing that I'm tempted to add is more scans to check indisvalid
> across these commands, particularly after the individual ATTACH
> PARTITION bits on each individual index.
>
> A second thing. Do you think that it would be worth adding a
> partitioned table that has no leaves in some portion of the test? I
> was thinking about a partitioned table called idxpart2 attached to
> idxpart in the first part of the test. I've found this pattern
> usually useful for this area of the code when recursing with
> validatePartitionedIndex() from a parent. I was also thinking about
> a partitioned table idxpart3 in the last test block, but as you want
> to check that indisvalid is not flipped to true for the parent if a
> child is !indisvalid, it would not be adapted.
Both things have been added to the tests, and applied the result down
to v14. The patch was able to apply cleanly across the board, without
conflicts. That's rare, these days..
--
Michael
