On Mon, Mar 16, 2026, at 1:29 PM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 12:23:04PM -0400, Greg Burd wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2026, at 5:11 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>>> Why do extra work in ExecBRUpdateTriggers() to eliminate the false
>>> negative case if we don't rely on it anyway? If we do need to rely on
>>> it in subsequent patches, then we need to be sure, right?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> What do we "need to be sure" of? That ExecGetAllUpdatedCols() not really
>> contains all attributes that its name implies? I think it now does that
>> after 0002, do you disagree?
>
> I'm admittedly still digging into the details, but the main question on my
> mind is whether there are other cases lurking that our in-tree tests aren't
> catching or that only exist in extensions. Will there be some sort of
> check or assertion to catch those?
Hey Nathan,
I think based on Jeff's questions I'm going to side-step this a bit with a new function ExecUpdateTargetedCols().
HopefullyI can have an assert in there that double checks the assumption and validates the contract.
> --
> nathan
-greg
