On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 11:32 AM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:16 AM houzj.f...@fujitsu.com > > On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 2:52 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > > wrote: > > > Did you have a misbehaving test for the ATTACH case? > > > > Thanks for the response. > > Thank you both. > > > Yes, I think the following example of ATTACH doesn't work as expected. > > Yeah, need the fix for the ATTACH case too. > > Couple more things: > > * We must invalidate not just the "direct" partitions of the table > being attached/detached, but also any indirect ones, because all of > their partition constraints would need to contain (or no longer > contain) the root parent's partition constraint. > > * I think we should lock the partitions before sending the > invalidation. The ATTACH code already locks the descendents for a > different purpose, but DETACH doesn't, so the latter needs to be fixed > to match. > > I've updated Alvaro's patch to address these points. Maybe, we should > also add these cases to the regression and isolation suites?
Apparently, I had posted a version of the patch that didn't even compile. I have fixed that in the attached and also added regression tests. Adding this to the next CF. -- Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
v3-0001-Invalidate-partitions-of-table-being-attached-det.patch
Description: Binary data
