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.
