MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20250331212648.ad4ab804559001d7f0788741@sraoss.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <20250331212648.ad4ab804559001d7f0788741@sraoss.co.jp>
From: surya poondla <suryapoondla4@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2026 16:56:19 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOVWO5q8cfbHiZuL-wSxknnriPCBYpqRCnQKfH38WuLwFuxkSw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Add comments about fire_triggers argument in ri_triggers.c
To: Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d22d2e06497c53c5"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAOVWO5q8cfbHiZuL-wSxknnriPCBYpqRCnQKfH38WuLwFuxkSw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--000000000000d22d2e06497c53c5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi Yugo,

Your patch change looks good.

Yes Amit, I agree that SPI_execute_snapshot() comments do provide some
context on AFTER triggers, but I still feel the newly added comment
in ri_PerformCheck() gives additional context on why the fire_triggers is
set to false.

Regards,
Surya Poondla

--000000000000d22d2e06497c53c5
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi=C2=A0Yugo,<br><br>Your patch change lo=
oks good.<br><br>Yes Amit, I agree that=C2=A0SPI_execute_snapshot() comment=
s do provide some context on AFTER triggers, but I still feel the newly add=
ed comment in=C2=A0ri_PerformCheck() gives additional context on why the fi=
re_triggers is set to false.</div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><div>Regards,<=
br>Surya Poondla</div></div>

--000000000000d22d2e06497c53c5--