Hi, On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 03:55:22PM -0500, David Christensen wrote: > > I can see the argument for this in terms of being cautious/explicit about > what gets removed, however > the utility in this particular form was related to being able to *avoid* > having to manually figure out > the relationship chains and the specific constraints involved. Might there > be some sort of middle > ground here? > [...] > > I think we could do something like extending the syntax to be > > > > SET CONSTRAINTS conname [ON tablename] [,...] new_properties > > This part seems reasonable. I need to look at how the existing SET > CONSTRAINTS is implemented; > would be interesting to see how the settings per-table/session are managed, > as that would be > illustrative to additional transient state like this.
The cfbot reports that this patch doesn't apply anymore: http://cfbot.cputube.org/patch_36_3195.log > patching file src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c > Hunk #1 succeeded at 93 (offset 3 lines). > Hunk #2 FAILED at 181. > Hunk #3 succeeded at 556 (offset 5 lines). > Hunk #4 succeeded at 581 (offset 5 lines). > Hunk #5 succeeded at 755 (offset 5 lines). > Hunk #6 succeeded at 776 (offset 5 lines). > 1 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file > src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c.rej Are you currently working on a possibly different approach and/or grammar? If not, could you send a rebased patch? In the meantime I will switch the cf entry to Waiting on Author.
