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 patch is not successfully applying, can you please rebase that.
Thanks for the reminder.
Masahiko Sawada, it's been a bit long since you reviewed the patch, are you still interested to review that?
Unfortunately, I don’t think I’ll have time in this CF to solve some very fundamental issues I found in the patch during the last cycle. I’m fine with either marking this as RwF for now or move to the next CF.
