On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 6:27 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sawada-san, > > On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 4:51 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I looked at the 0001 patch and here are random comments. Please ignore > > a comment if it is already discussed. > > Thanks a lot for the review and sorry for the delay in replying.
No problem. Sorry for the late reply too. > > Or is this change really needed? This change added one condition > > "tgparentid = 0" but IIUC I think triggers that are NOT tgisinternal > > are always tgparentid = 0. Also, it seems it is true both before and > > after this patch. > > Actually, as noted in the commit message, I'm intending to change > tgisnternal to only be true for triggers generated by foreign keys and > no longer for partitions' user-defined triggers that are inherited. > So whereas NOT tgisnternal would suffice to exclude partitions' > inherited triggers before, that would no longer be the case with this > patch; AND tgparentid = 0 will be needed for that. Understood. > > Actually, I found a big hole in my assumptions around deferrable > foreign constraints, invalidating the approach I took in 0002 to use a > query-lifetime tuplestore to record root parent tuples. I'm trying to > find a way to make the tuplestore transaction-lifetime so that the > patch still works. > > In the meantime, I'm attaching an updated set with 0001 changed per > your comments. 0001 patch conflicts with 71f4c8c6f74. Could you please rebase the patchset? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
