Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)

Hi Ibrar, Sawada-san,

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 20:25 Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 6:09 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:56 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 6:27 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>> > > Actually, I found a big hole in my assumptions around deferrable
>> > > foreign constraints, invalidating the approach I took in 0002 to use a
>> > > query-lifetime tuplestore to record root parent tuples. I'm trying to
>> > > find a way to make the tuplestore transaction-lifetime so that the
>> > > patch still works.
>> > >
>> > > In the meantime, I'm attaching an updated set with 0001 changed per
>> > > your comments.
>> >
>> > 0001 patch conflicts with 71f4c8c6f74. Could you please rebase the
>> patchset?
>>
>> Thanks for the heads up.
>>
>> I still don't have a working patch to address the above mentioned
>> shortcoming of the previous approach, but here is a rebased version in
>> the meantime.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Amit Langote
>> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>
>
>
> @Amit patch is not successfully applying, can you please rebase that.
>

Thanks for the reminder.

Masahiko Sawada, it's been a bit long since you reviewed the patch, are you
> still interested to review that?
>

Unfortunately, I don’t think I’ll have time in this CF to solve some very
fundamental issues I found in the patch during the last cycle. I’m fine
with either marking this as RwF for now or move to the next CF.

> --
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com