On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 11:02 PM Chao Li <[email protected]> wrote: > From a runtime behavior perspective, yes, this patch reverts the behavior > change made by 16a0039dc0d1.
Yes. > However: > > * 16a0039dc0d1 also refactored validateDomainCheckConstraint() to allow > passing in the lock mode, and I think that refactoring is still useful and > maybe worth keeping. I'd prefer to remove that refactoring code, since after the fix there is no longer any user of the lockmode argument in validateDomainCheckConstraint(). > * A follow-up commit, a99c6b56f, made validating an already-validated > constraint a no-op. A direct revert of 16a0039dc0d1 would conflict with later > changes around this code. Yes, but fixing that conflict does not seem very difficult, no? > * This patch also adds a test to prevent future changes from making the same > mistake. +1 for adding the test! > > If we make this change, then the release note item should be removed > > entirely, ISTM. > > > > True. Once this patch is pushed, this item should be removed from the release > note. Agreed. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
