Re: pg_restore error with partitioned table having exclude constraint
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
From: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
To: Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
Cc: Keith Paskett <keith.paskett@logansw.com>, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2025-04-28T08:42:14Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On 2025-Apr-24, Japin Li wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 17:18, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote: > > On 2025-Apr-17, Japin Li wrote: > > > >> It seems PG 16 does not support exclusion constraints on > >> partitioned tables. > > > > Yeah, my recollection is that they were purposefully disallowed > > (mainly because I didn't want to research how to fully make them > > work when adding local partitioned indexes), and that we needed to > > do more work if we wanted to let them through. I suspect commit > > 8c852ba9a4 was mistaken to allow that case without looking for > > further implications. > > Sorry, I’m unclear on “more work.” Can you explain further? Well, there are no tests in the patch. 8c852ba9a434 added some, but it's now clear that something was overlooked. I think this patch should make more of an effort to cover all interesting cases in regression tests if there are holes in coverage; and also add something to verify that pg_dump and pg_upgrade work correctly for these constraints. -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Si quieres ser creativo, aprende el arte de perder el tiempo"
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Allow some exclusion constraints on partitions
- 8c852ba9a434 17.0 cited
-
Local partitioned indexes
- 8b08f7d4820f 11.0 cited