Re: pgsql: Rewrite some RI code to avoid using SPI

On 2022-Apr-07, Tom Lane wrote:

> Just for the record, I didn't approve of that patch, and I don't
> think cramming it in a few hours before feature freeze is a good
> way to proceed.

> (1) We've added enough instability to the tree this week already.

Several animals failed already in ways that look obviously connected to
this commit, so I can't disagree:

https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=grison&dt=2022-04-07%2020%3A12%3A22
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=lapwing&dt=2022-04-07%2020%3A40%3A16
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=florican&dt=2022-04-07%2021%3A18%3A46

> (2) I'm still quite unhappy about the idea that this particular
> type of FK check will be done using fundamentally different methods
> than every other type of FK check. I think that is inevitably
> going to lead to semantic inconsistencies.

I must have misread, then, that you were not as adamantly opposed to the
idea as in your first email to the thread.

I'll revert, keeping the new test.

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"If you have nothing to say, maybe you need just the right tool to help you
not say it." (New York Times, about Microsoft PowerPoint)