From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Rewrite some RI code to avoid using SPI
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 16:32:07 -0400
Message-ID: <3400437.1649363527@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1ncXX2-000mFt-Pe@gemulon.postgresql.org>
References: <E1ncXX2-000mFt-Pe@gemulon.postgresql.org>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Rewrite some RI code to avoid using SPI
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.
(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.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Rewrite some RI code to avoid using SPI
In-Reply-To: <3400437.1649363527@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox