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