Re: Dump-restore loosing 'attnotnull' bit for DEFERRABLE PRIMARY KEY column(s).

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Amul Sul
Тема Re: Dump-restore loosing 'attnotnull' bit for DEFERRABLE PRIMARY KEY column(s).
Дата
Msg-id CAAJ_b94vRvR8AymA08Dz9Cs_3rHq+dRfY_-tnuJU48jkEuojwg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Dump-restore loosing 'attnotnull' bit for DEFERRABLE PRIMARY KEY column(s).  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Ответы Re: Dump-restore loosing 'attnotnull' bit for DEFERRABLE PRIMARY KEY column(s).  (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers


On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 8:29 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2023-Sep-20, Amul Sul wrote:

> On the latest master head, I can see a $subject bug that seems to be related
> commit #b0e96f311985:
>
> Here is the table definition:
> create table foo(i int, j int, CONSTRAINT pk PRIMARY KEY(i) DEFERRABLE);

Interesting, thanks for the report.  Your attribution to that commit is
correct.  The table is dumped like this:

CREATE TABLE public.foo (
    i integer CONSTRAINT pgdump_throwaway_notnull_0 NOT NULL NO INHERIT,
    j integer
);
ALTER TABLE ONLY public.foo
    ADD CONSTRAINT pk PRIMARY KEY (i) DEFERRABLE;
ALTER TABLE ONLY public.foo DROP CONSTRAINT pgdump_throwaway_notnull_0;

so the problem here is that the deferrable PK is not considered a reason
to keep attnotnull set, so we produce a throwaway constraint that we
then drop.  This is already bogus, but what is more bogus is the fact
that the backend accepts the DROP CONSTRAINT at all.

The pg_dump failing should be easy to fix, but fixing the backend to
error out sounds more critical.  So, the reason for this behavior is
that RelationGetIndexList doesn't want to list an index that isn't
marked indimmediate as a primary key.  I can easily hack around that by
doing

        diff --git a/src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c b/src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c
        index 7234cb3da6..971d9c8738 100644
        --- a/src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c
        +++ b/src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c
        @@ -4794,7 +4794,6 @@ RelationGetIndexList(Relation relation)
                         * check them.
                         */
                        if (!index->indisunique ||
        -                       !index->indimmediate ||
                                !heap_attisnull(htup, Anum_pg_index_indpred, NULL))
                                continue;

        @@ -4821,6 +4820,9 @@ RelationGetIndexList(Relation relation)
                                 relation->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE))
                                pkeyIndex = index->indexrelid;

        +               if (!index->indimmediate)
        +                       continue;
        +
                        if (!index->indisvalid)
                                continue;


But of course this is not great, since it impacts unrelated bits of code
that are relying on relation->pkindex or RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap
having their current behavior with non-immediate index.

True, but still wondering why would relation->rd_pkattr skipped for a
deferrable primary key, which seems to be a bit incorrect to me since it
sensing that relation doesn't have PK at all.  Anyway, that is unrelated. 
 
I think a real solution is to stop relying on RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap
in ATExecDropNotNull().  (And, again, pg_dump needs some patch as well
to avoid printing a throwaway NOT NULL constraint at this point.)

I might not have understood this, but I think, if it is ok to skip throwaway NOT
NULL for deferrable PK then that would be enough for the reported issue
to be fixed.  I quickly tried with the attached patch which looks sufficient
to skip that, but, TBH, I haven't thought carefully about this change.

Regards,
Amul




Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Следующее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg_upgrade --check fails to warn about abstime