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
In-reply-to: <E1ncXX2-000mFt-Pe@gemulon.postgresql.org>
References: <E1ncXX2-000mFt-Pe@gemulon.postgresql.org>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
	message dated "Thu, 07 Apr 2022 19:11:01 -0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3400436.1649363527.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 16:32:07 -0400
Message-ID: <3400437.1649363527@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3400437.1649363527%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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