Hi Ibrar, Sawada-san, On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 20:25 Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 6:09 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:56 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 6:27 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > 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? >> >> Thanks for the heads up. >> >> I still don't have a working patch to address the above mentioned >> shortcoming of the previous approach, but here is a rebased version in >> the meantime. >> >> >> -- >> Amit Langote >> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >> > > > @Amit patch is not successfully applying, can you please rebase that. > Thanks for the reminder. Masahiko Sawada, it's been a bit long since you reviewed the patch, are you > still interested to review that? > Unfortunately, I don’t think I’ll have time in this CF to solve some very fundamental issues I found in the patch during the last cycle. I’m fine with either marking this as RwF for now or move to the next CF. > -- Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
