Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 6:09 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:56 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 6:27 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)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.

Masahiko Sawada, it's been a bit long since you reviewed the patch, are you
still interested to review that?

--
Ibrar Ahmed