On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Stephan Szabo wrote: > On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Tom Lane wrote: > > > I think this would take some generalization of afterTriggerInvokeEvents, > > which now might or might not find the target rel in the EState it's > > passed, but otherwise it doesn't seem too invasive. Thoughts? > > That doesn't seem too bad really, looking at afterTriggerInvokeEvents it > doesn't look like it'd be that much work to change it to handle that case. > I can put a patch together to see what it looks like.
I did some work on this, and I'm getting a couple of other failures from other parts of the foreign key regression test (specifically an error that is no longer erroring in a multi-column on update set default). I'm going to need to look more closely to see if I can figure out why. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
