| commit | c3709100be73ad5af7ff536476d4d713bca41b1a | |
| author | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> | |
| Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:20:56 +0000 (15 12:20 +0200) | ||
| committer | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> | |
| Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:20:56 +0000 (15 12:20 +0200) | ||
| tree | 2ba97aabd1032278ea4535d49627ddcf54a0e67d | treesnapshot (tar.gz zip) |
| parent | 6ff21c05302592874b8149421711e06043b954fe | commitdiff |
Fix propagating attnotnull in multiple inheritance
In one of the many strange corner cases of multiple inheritance being
used, commit b0e96f311985 missed a CommandCounterIncrement() call after
updating the attnotnull flag during ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN, which caused
a catalog tuple to be update attempted twice in the same command, giving
rise to a "tuple already updated by self" error. Add the missing call
to solve that, and a test case that reproduces the scenario.
As a (perhaps surprising) secondary effect, this CCI addition triggers
another behavior change: when a primary key is added to a parent
partitioned table and the column in an existing partition does not have
a not-null constraint, we no longer error out. This will probably be a
welcome change by some users, and I think it's unlikely that anybody
will miss the old behavior.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/045dec3f-9b3d-aa44-0c99-85f6992306c7@gmail.com
In one of the many strange corner cases of multiple inheritance being
used, commit b0e96f311985 missed a CommandCounterIncrement() call after
updating the attnotnull flag during ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN, which caused
a catalog tuple to be update attempted twice in the same command, giving
rise to a "tuple already updated by self" error. Add the missing call
to solve that, and a test case that reproduces the scenario.
As a (perhaps surprising) secondary effect, this CCI addition triggers
another behavior change: when a primary key is added to a parent
partitioned table and the column in an existing partition does not have
a not-null constraint, we no longer error out. This will probably be a
welcome change by some users, and I think it's unlikely that anybody
will miss the old behavior.
Reported-by: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/045dec3f-9b3d-aa44-0c99-85f6992306c7@gmail.com