Re: a misbehavior of partition row movement (?)

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 6:09 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:56 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 6:27 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.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. 

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