Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 12:18:51 +0100
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, 
	Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>, jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>, 
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org>, 
	Suraj Kharage <suraj.kharage@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: NOT ENFORCED constraint feature
Message-ID: <202502271118.3jopzlc5yfkn@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAAJ_b96Jit0hu0KYNDUM6L7wg2hYRjXu2VOGSBgZT8LGZOTcJA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202502271118.3jopzlc5yfkn%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2025-Feb-27, Amul Sul wrote:

> Attached is the rebased patch set against the latest master head,
> which also includes a *new* refactoring patch (0001). In this patch,
> I’ve re-added ATExecAlterChildConstr(), which is required for the main
> feature patch (0008) to handle recursion from different places while
> altering enforceability.

I think you refer to ATExecAlterConstrEnforceability, which claims
(falsely) that it is a subroutine to ATExecAlterConstrRecurse; in
reality it is called from ATExecAlterConstraintInternal or at least
that's what I see in your 0008.  So I wonder if you haven't confused
yourself here.  If nothing else, that comments needs fixed.  I didn't
review these patches.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Porque francamente, si para saber manejarse a uno mismo hubiera que
rendir examen... ¿Quién es el machito que tendría carnet?"  (Mafalda)