On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 6:42 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:26 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > @@ -1735,6 +1735,13 @@ apply_handle_insert_internal(ApplyExecutionData > > *edata, > > static void > > check_relation_updatable(LogicalRepRelMapEntry *rel) > > { > > + /* > > + * If it is a partitioned table, we don't check it, we will check its > > + * partition later. > > + */ > > + if (rel->localrel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE) > > + return; > > > > Why do this? I mean why if logicalrep_check_updatable() doesn't care > > if the relation is partitioned or not -- it does all the work > > regardless. > > > > I suggest we don't add this check in check_relation_updatable(). > > I think based on this suggestion patch has moved this check to > logicalrep_rel_mark_updatable(). For a partitioned table, it won't > even validate whether it can mark updatable as false which seems odd > to me even though there might not be any bug due to that. Was your > suggestion actually intended to move it to > logicalrep_rel_mark_updatable?
No, I didn't intend to suggest that we move this check to logicalrep_rel_mark_updatable(); didn't notice that that's what the latest patch did. What I said is that we shouldn't ignore the updatable flag for a partitioned table in check_relation_updatable(), because logicalrep_rel_mark_updatable() would have set the updatable flag correctly even for partitioned tables. IOW, we should not special-case partitioned tables anywhere. I guess the point of adding the check is to allow the case where a leaf partition's replica identity can be used to apply an update originally targeting its ancestor that doesn't itself have one. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to move the check_relation_updatable() call to apply_handle_{update|delete}_internal()? We know for sure that we only ever get there for leaf tables. If we do that, we won't need the relkind check. -- Thanks, Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com