Hello, Álvaro! On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 10:58 AM Álvaro Herrera <[email protected]> wrote: > Rereading this -- did you mean to propose that a possible fix was to > remove the "invalid arbiter index list" error? I had understood > something different.
Yes, it was the initial idea. > Your idea downthread of changing the way that check works (so that we > don't throw an error in this case, but we continue to double-check that > the arbiter list is sensible) sounds reasonable to me. Do you want to > propose a specific check for it? I think the next logic is correct: * for each IS indisvalid arbiter in the parent table we should have AT LEAST ONE compatible indisvalid pair in the partition (we may have multiple or a few more ready-only) * for each NOT indisvalid arbiter in parent - nothing is expected from partition I'll try to create a patch with such later. Best regards, Mikhail.
