Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 23:34:03 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Rewrite some RI code to avoid using SPI
Message-ID: <202204072134.sou3laebxj7c@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <3400437.1649363527@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202204072134.sou3laebxj7c%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2022-Apr-07, Tom Lane wrote:

> Just for the record, I didn't approve of that patch, and I don't
> think cramming it in a few hours before feature freeze is a good
> way to proceed.

> (1) We've added enough instability to the tree this week already.

Several animals failed already in ways that look obviously connected to
this commit, so I can't disagree:

https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=grison&dt=2022-04-07%2020%3A12%3A22
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=lapwing&dt=2022-04-07%2020%3A40%3A16
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=florican&dt=2022-04-07%2021%3A18%3A46

> (2) I'm still quite unhappy about the idea that this particular
> type of FK check will be done using fundamentally different methods
> than every other type of FK check.  I think that is inevitably
> going to lead to semantic inconsistencies.

I must have misread, then, that you were not as adamantly opposed to the
idea as in your first email to the thread.

I'll revert, keeping the new test.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"If you have nothing to say, maybe you need just the right tool to help you
not say it."                   (New York Times, about Microsoft PowerPoint)