Hi Tom, hi Alvaro, > On 27 Nov 2024, at 19:52, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 which should actually be in another partition, right? Since there were no rows, no harm could have been done. Also, since this is a self reference, the wrong table is also the right one. Again, thanks very much for clarifying this. Cheers Paul
