Hi, Chao! On Wed, May 20, 2026 at 2:37 AM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 19, 2026, at 19:00, Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 5:50 AM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On May 18, 2026, at 20:04, Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 2:57 PM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> <v3-0003-Clarify-SPLIT-PARTITION-bound-requirements-in-doc.patch><v3-0001-Fix-SPLIT-PARTITION-range-bound-validation-with-D.patch><v3-0002-Fix-SPLIT-PARTITION-hint-for-DEFAULT-partition-bo.patch><v3-0004-Reject-degenerate-SPLIT-PARTITION-with-DEFAULT-pa.patch> > >>>> > >>>> v3-0001 through v3-0003 look good to me. > >>>> > >>>> For v3-0004, I have a suspicion, but it's late here and my brain is > >>>> getting slow, so I would like to study it more tomorrow. > >>> > >>> Sure, take your time. > >>> > >>> ------ > >>> Regards, > >>> Alexander Korotkov > >>> Supabase > >> > >> My suspicion was that check_split_partition_not_same_bound() now has two > >> paths. The RANGE path honors collation, while the LIST path does not. So I > >> spent some time creating a test that uses a case-insensitive collation: > >> ``` > >> evantest=# create collation case_insensitive (provider=icu, > >> locale='und-u-ks-level2', deterministic = false); > >> CREATE COLLATION > >> evantest=# create table t (b text collate case_insensitive) partition by > >> list (b); > >> CREATE TABLE > >> evantest=# create table tp_ab partition of t for values in ('a', 'b'); > >> CREATE TABLE > >> evantest=# alter table t split partition tp_ab into > >> evantest-# (partition tp_a for values in ('a', 'A'), > >> evantest(# partition tp_default default); > >> ERROR: cannot split partition "tp_ab" only to add a DEFAULT partition > >> LINE 2: (partition tp_a for values in ('a', 'A'), > >> ^ > >> DETAIL: The non-DEFAULT partition would keep the same partition bound. > >> HINT: Use CREATE TABLE ... PARTITION OF ... DEFAULT to add a DEFAULT > >> partition. > >> ``` > >> > >> In this test, the split partition’s bound is ('a', 'b'), and the new > >> partition’s bound is ('a', 'A'). Their list lengths are both 2, but the > >> two bounds are actually different, because 'a' and 'A' are considered > >> equal by the collation. > >> > >> So, in the LIST path, since check_partition_bounds_for_split_list() has > >> already ensured that the new partition’s bound is contained within the > >> split partition’s bound, we need to check the reverse direction as well. > >> Whether the split partition’s bound is also contained in the new > >> partition’s bound. If yes, the two bounds are identical. > >> > >> See the attached v4 for my changes for 0004. 0001-0003 are unchanged. > >> Since 0001 and 0003 are independent of 0004, maybe they can be pushed > >> first. > > > > I've pushed 0001-0003. > > Thanks for pushing them. > > > Thank you for discovering the collation issue > > in 0004. Note that original approach of using > > partition_bounds_equal() can't handle different collations too (as it > > internally uses datumIsEqual()). > > Yes, I realized that while reviewing v3. That’s reason I didn’t get back v2 > and only worked again based on v3. > > > I've revised the remaining patch: > > made function header comment a bit more detailed > > This part looks good to me. > > > and added additional > > regression tests. Please, check. > > > > But I don’t see any change for regression test between v4 and v5. Maybe you > forgot to save your changes?
Sorry, I just mess up, no changes in tests. I'm going to push this if no objection. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov Supabase
