On Mon, Mar 16, 2026, at 1:29 PM, Nathan Bossart wrote: > 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?
Hey Nathan, I think based on Jeff's questions I'm going to side-step this a bit with a new function ExecUpdateTargetedCols(). Hopefully I can have an assert in there that double checks the assumption and validates the contract. > -- > nathan -greg
