On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 6:02 PM Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> wrote: > > On 28.03.25 14:27, Amul Sul wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 3:34 PM Ashutosh Bapat > > <ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 6:25 PM Amul Sul <sula...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> I am not sure how to make such tests stable enough since the trigger > >>> name involves OIDs. In count check, I tried adjusting the join > >>> condition to ensure that I get the exact same type of constraint > >>> w.r.t. trigger relation and the constraint. > >> > >> There are tests which mask variable parts of EXPLAIN output. Can we > >> use similar trick to mask OIDs from the trigger names? > > > > Okay, tried it in the attached version. Please check if it looks good. > > I have committed version 21 of the patches (without 0006). > > The patch you posted failed the regression test foreign_key because in > the output of the queries that list the triggers, the conname output did > not match the expected output. I committed it so that the test output > matches the code behavior. But please double-check that that's what you > intended. > Interestingly, it's not failing for me, and what's even stranger is that the version with the committed test works fine on my system as well. :)
> Also, something we hadn't looked at before, I think, I made > get_relation_foreign_keys() in src/backend/optimizer/util/plancat.c > ignore not-enforced foreign keys. That means, not-enforced foreign keys > will not be used for cost estimation. This is, I think, what we want, > as we discussed earlier. If we ever want an alternative mode where > not-enforced constraints are considered for cost-estimation, then we > could quite easily tweak this. > Yeah, it makes sense. Thanks so much for the review, committing the patch, and all your guidance. Regards, Amul
