On 2025-Feb-28, Amul Sul wrote: > Yeah, that was intentional. I wanted to avoid recursion again by > hitting ATExecAlterChildConstr() at the end of > ATExecAlterConstraintInternal(). Also, I realized the value doesn’t > matter since recurse = false is explicitly set inside the > cmdcon->alterEnforceability condition. I wasn’t fully satisfied with > how we handled the recursion decision (code design), so I’ll give it > more thought. If I don’t find a better approach, I’ll add clearer > comments to explain the reasoning.
So, did you have a chance to rethink the recursion model here? TBH I do not like what you have one bit. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Para tener más hay que desear menos"
