Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 10:07:52 +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: <202503110907.nxcopwq53ivx@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAAJ_b94OUAXbPLJ--N4-k7BU9yLDvpvnFXjVRVG0zNcamcEAgw@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202503110907.nxcopwq53ivx%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2025-Feb-28, Amul Sul wrote:

> Yeah, that was intentional. I wanted to avoid recursion again by
> hitting ATExecAlterChildConstr() at the end of
> ATExecAlterConstraintInternal(). Also, I realized the value doesn’t
> matter since recurse = false is explicitly set inside the
> cmdcon->alterEnforceability condition. I wasn’t fully satisfied with
> how we handled the recursion decision (code design), so I’ll give it
> more thought. If I don’t find a better approach, I’ll add clearer
> comments to explain the reasoning.

So, did you have a chance to rethink the recursion model here?  TBH I do
not like what you have one bit.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Para tener más hay que desear menos"