On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 7:09 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> writes: > > Yes, this looks like a bug and your fix seems correct to me. It would > > be nice to add a test case for this scenario. > > A test case doesn't seem that exciting to me. If we were trying to > make it actually work, then yeah, but throwing an error isn't that > useful to test. The code will be exercised by replication to a > regular partitioned table (I assume we do have tests for that).
That's true, but we missed this case because of the absence of the test case so I thought at least we can add it now to catch any future bug in case of any behavior change. > A completely different line of thought is that this doesn't seem > like a terribly bulletproof fix, since children could get added to > a partitioned table after we look. Maybe it'd be better to check > the relkind at the last moment before we do something that depends > on a child table being a relation. +1 -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
