On Mon, Mar 16, 2026 at 12:23:04PM -0400, Greg Burd wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2026, at 5:11 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: >> Why do extra work in ExecBRUpdateTriggers() to eliminate the false >> negative case if we don't rely on it anyway? If we do need to rely on >> it in subsequent patches, then we need to be sure, right? > > [...] > > What do we "need to be sure" of? That ExecGetAllUpdatedCols() not really > contains all attributes that its name implies? I think it now does that > after 0002, do you disagree?
I'm admittedly still digging into the details, but the main question on my mind is whether there are other cases lurking that our in-tree tests aren't catching or that only exist in extensions. Will there be some sort of check or assertion to catch those? -- nathan
