I wrote:
> Dmitrii Bondar writes:
>> I considered removing it entirely, but that seemed too drastic a
>> solution (and, at the very least, I don't have enough expertise to make
>> that decision).
> I'm not that thrilled with giving up on refint.c either. But in its
> current state, it's a pret
Dmitrii Bondar writes:
> On 04/04/2025 01:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So that's a long laundry list and we haven't even dug hard.
>> Is it worth it? If you feel like doing the legwork then
>> I'm willing to support the project, but I really wonder if
>> we shouldn't cut our losses and just remove the
On 04/04/2025 01:11, Tom Lane wrote:
So that's a long laundry list and we haven't even dug hard.
Is it worth it? If you feel like doing the legwork then
I'm willing to support the project, but I really wonder if
we shouldn't cut our losses and just remove the module.
(I hesitate now to look at
Dmitrii Bondar writes:
> [ v6-0001-Triggers-test-fix-with-the-invalid-cache-in-refin.patch ]
I spent a little bit of time looking over this patch. My first
instinct was "we can't really change the recommended method of
installing these triggers" --- but that would only matter if we
thought there
Hi, Paul,
Thanks for the suggestions.
> This looks good. I have a couple small grammar suggestions. This:
I have replaced the incorrect articles with the correct ones.
> We can put all the new lines inside the #ifdef, can't we?
You're right. I have done that.
Best regards,
Dmitrii
From f56
Hi Dmitrii,
Thanks for the quick update!
On 3/26/25 02:45, Dmitrii Bondar wrote:
>> 3. Consider updating documentation for doc/src/contrib-spi.sgml, or any file
as appropriate, to
>> reflect the changes.
>
> The changes have now been added to doc/src/contrib-spi.sgml. I also added a
considerat
Hi!
Thank you for the review!
3. Consider updating documentation for doc/src/contrib-spi.sgml, or any
file as appropriate, to reflect the changes.
The changes have now been added to doc/src/contrib-spi.sgml. I also
added a consideration note about interactions with BEFORE triggers.
4. Are
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: not tested
Implements feature: not tested
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Hi Dmitrii,
Paul Jungwirth and I reviewed this patch, and here are our comme
Just a rebase.From 76c4ca0f63091551b3f579c2c74345438e3d62d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bondar Dmitrii
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:37:48 +0700
Subject: [PATCH v4] Triggers test fix
---
contrib/spi/refint.c | 25 -
src/test/regress/expected/triggers.out | 39 ++
Dmitrii Bondar писал(а) 2025-01-29 16:53:
Hi, Hackers!
I was testing a connection pooler with `make installcheck` and noticed
that `check_foreign_key()` from the `refint` library reuses the same
cached plan for cascade `UPDATE`/`DELETE` operations. As a result, a
cascade `DELETE` is applied a
Hi, Hackers!
I was testing a connection pooler with `make installcheck` and noticed
that `check_foreign_key()` from the `refint` library reuses the same
cached plan for cascade `UPDATE`/`DELETE` operations. As a result, a
cascade `DELETE` is applied after an `UPDATE` command on the primary key
11 matches
Mail list logo
