On Sun, 21 Dec 2025, 12:14 Tender Wang, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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? >
