Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 16:57:27 +0800
From: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
To: David Christensen <david.christensen@crunchydata.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: DELETE CASCADE
Message-ID: <20220112085727.rxzbe3u2ebidht5a@jrouhaud>
References: <CAOxo6X+bsf85kycpoE5m2G57EFEGkCC72reNgg4Lna9Ud53-9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwZe6hr=rXMCPGVQ55gnSM_zAf7h6Dx_0n-LGJMB6izhoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <lza6myugzf.fsf@veeddrois.attlocal.net>
 <2432009.1632502808@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <lz8rzf2izk.fsf@veeddrois.attlocal.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <lz8rzf2izk.fsf@veeddrois.attlocal.net>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220112085727.rxzbe3u2ebidht5a%40jrouhaud>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 03:55:22PM -0500, David Christensen wrote:
> 
> I can see the argument for this in terms of being cautious/explicit about what gets removed, however
> the utility in this particular form was related to being able to *avoid* having to manually figure out
> the relationship chains and the specific constraints involved.  Might there be some sort of middle
> ground here?
> [...]
> > I think we could do something like extending the syntax to be
> >
> > 	SET CONSTRAINTS conname [ON tablename] [,...] new_properties
> 
> This part seems reasonable.  I need to look at how the existing SET CONSTRAINTS is implemented;
> would be interesting to see how the settings per-table/session are managed, as that would be
> illustrative to additional transient state like this.

The cfbot reports that this patch doesn't apply anymore:
http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_36_3195.log

> patching file src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 93 (offset 3 lines).
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 181.
> Hunk #3 succeeded at 556 (offset 5 lines).
> Hunk #4 succeeded at 581 (offset 5 lines).
> Hunk #5 succeeded at 755 (offset 5 lines).
> Hunk #6 succeeded at 776 (offset 5 lines).
> 1 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c.rej

Are you currently working on a possibly different approach and/or grammar?  If
not, could you send a rebased patch?  In the meantime I will switch the cf
entry to Waiting on Author.