Since this function is used as a CHECK constraint condition,
returning NULL is tantamount to returning TRUE, which would have the
effect of letting in a row that doesn't satisfy the hash condition.
Admittedly, the cases for which this is done should be unreachable
in practice, but that doesn't make it any less a bad idea. It also
seems like a dartboard was used to decide which error cases should
throw errors as opposed to returning NULL.
For the checks for NULL input values, I just switched it to returning
false. There's some argument that an error would be better; but the
case really should be can't-happen in a generated hash constraint,
so it's likely not worth more code for.
For the parent-relation-open-failure case, it seems like we might
as well let relation_open throw an error, instead of having an
impossible-to-diagnose constraint failure.
Back-patch to v11 where this code came in.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/24067.1605134819@sss.pgh.pa.us
This custom opclass was already in use in other tests -- defined
independently in every such file. Move the definition to the earliest
test that uses it, and keep it around so that later tests can reuse it.
Use it in the tests for pruning of hash partitioning, and since this
makes the second expected file unnecessary, put those tests back in
partition_prune.sql whence they sprang.
Author: Amit Langote
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BTgmoZ0D5kJbt8eKXtvVdvTcGGWn6ehWCRSZbWytD-uzH92mQ%40mail.gmail.com
Fix the function header comment to describe the actual behavior.
Check that table OID, modulus, and remainder arguments are not NULL
before accessing them. Check that the modulus and remainder are
sensible. If the table OID doesn't exist, return NULL instead of
emitting an internal error, similar to what we do elsewhere. Check
that the actual argument types match, or at least are binary coercible
to, the expected argument types. Correctly handle invocation of this
function using the VARIADIC syntax. Add regression tests.
Robert Haas and Amul Sul, per a report by Andreas Seltenreich and
subsequent followup investigation.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/871sl4sdrv.fsf@ansel.ydns.eu