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"
