Hi Tom, hi Alvaro,
> On 27 Nov 2024, at 19:52, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Okay, so I was able to reproduce this from scratch on HEAD:
great, thanks.
> I doubt that there's anything actually wrong with the catalog state at
> this point (perhaps Alvaro would confirm that). That leads to the
> conclusion that what's wrong is the release notes' query for fingering
> broken constraints, and it needs some additional test to avoid
> complaining about (I suspect) self-reference cases.
In the meantime, I updated the whole company. The one test database actually was the only database that this was
returned.I found no other occurrences.
As I understand it, the worst thing that could happen is that one or more rows end up in a detached partition table
whichshould actually be in another partition, right? Since there were no rows, no harm could have been done. Also,
sincethis is a self reference, the wrong table is also the right one.
Again, thanks very much for clarifying this.
Cheers
Paul
