From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)compiler(dot)org>, Suraj Kharage <suraj(dot)kharage(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature |
Date: | 2025-03-11 09:07:52 |
Message-ID: | 202503110907.nxcopwq53ivx@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Evgeny | 2025-03-11 09:12:10 | Re: Elimination of the repetitive code at the SLRU bootstrap functions. |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2025-03-11 09:06:37 | Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ) |