Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands

On Sun, 21 Dec 2025, 12:14 Tender Wang, <tndrwang@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> 于2025年12月20日周六 19:08写道：
>
>> Hi Tender,
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 5:18 AM Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I found this feature merged; thanks for this work.
>> > I tested it and found that one place in the error errcode may need to
>> be changed.
>> > In checkPartition():
>> > ...
>> > if (get_partition_parent(partRelOid, false) != RelationGetRelid(rel))
>> >     ereport(ERROR,
>> >     errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_TABLE),
>> >     errmsg("relation \"%s\" is not a partition of relation \"%s\"",
>> > ...
>> >
>> > ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_TABLE usually means "table does not exist."
>> > When entering here, the table should exist, otherwise table_open()
>> already reports an error.
>> > I found another two errcode in checkPartition() use
>> ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE,
>> > In the attached patch, I replace ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_TABLE with
>> ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE.
>>
>> I agree with you that ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_TABLE is certainly wrong error
>> code because the table actually exists.  ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE is
>> better.  For example, we throw it when trying to attach a partition to
>> non-partitioned table.  So, the parent table type is wrong.  However,
>> are objects in the situation under consideration really have wrong
>> type?  The problem is that one table is not partition of another.
>> However, it's possibly that they could be attached without changing of
>> their types.  So, I think about
>> ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE.  What do you think?
>>
>
> It's ok for me. Please check the v2 patch.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Tender Wang
>


On Sun, 21 Dec 2025, 12:14 Tender Wang, <tndrwang@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> 于2025年12月20日周六 19:08写道：
>
>> Hi Tender,
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 5:18 AM Tender Wang <tndrwang@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I found this feature merged; thanks for this work.
>> > I tested it and found that one place in the error errcode may need to
>> be changed.
>> > In checkPartition():
>> > ...
>> > if (get_partition_parent(partRelOid, false) != RelationGetRelid(rel))
>> >     ereport(ERROR,
>> >     errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_TABLE),
>> >     errmsg("relation \"%s\" is not a partition of relation \"%s\"",
>> > ...
>> >
>> > ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_TABLE usually means "table does not exist."
>> > When entering here, the table should exist, otherwise table_open()
>> already reports an error.
>> > I found another two errcode in checkPartition() use
>> ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE,
>> > In the attached patch, I replace ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_TABLE with
>> ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE.
>>
>> I agree with you that ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_TABLE is certainly wrong error
>> code because the table actually exists.  ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE is
>> better.  For example, we throw it when trying to attach a partition to
>> non-partitioned table.  So, the parent table type is wrong.  However,
>> are objects in the situation under consideration really have wrong
>> type?  The problem is that one table is not partition of another.
>> However, it's possibly that they could be attached without changing of
>> their types.  So, I think about
>> ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE.  What do you think?
>>
>
> It's ok for me. Please check the v2 patch.
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Tender Wang
>


Hi! Your v2 looks fine
The only question for me is, should we add any regression test to exercise
this code, or it is not worth the troubles?

>