I’ve fixed the remaining issues mentioned here, and submitted a new thread here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d631b406-13b7-433e-8c0b-c6040c4b4663%40Spark Would appreciate any help in reviewing!
/Viktor On 2 Sep 2025 at 20:56 +0200, [email protected] <[email protected]>, wrote: > Hello, I was working on my own patch for the same thing, until I found this > was already there. > I think this would be very useful for a lot of people. > Do you need any help moving this forward Anderas? I have both tests and docs > written, although not for the FOR UPDATE part. > > > On 25 Jun 2025, at 13:39, Dean Rasheed <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 12 May 2025 at 19:33, Andreas Karlsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I have fixed that one and some other issues locally and will submit a > > > new version in a while after I have added more tests because you are > > > very correct in that a big issue with my last version of the patch was > > > the big lack of tests and lack of making sure all features which > > > interact with UPSERT actually worked with my changes. Plus some islation > > > tests would be nice to have. > > > > > > > +1. Don't forget to move the CF entry to the next open CF. > > > > FYI, over on [1] I proposed more tests and doc updates for RLS. I > > think those updates might make it easier to test and document the RLS > > aspects of this patch. > > > > [1] > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEZATCWqnfeChjK=n1v_dyzt4rt4mnq+ybf9c0qxdytvmsy...@mail.gmail.com > > > > Regards, > > Dean > > > > > > >
