On 2019-02-25 17:17, Corey Huinker wrote:
> Right, this makes a lot of sense, similar to how ri_restrict() combines
> RESTRICT and NO ACTION.
>
>
> I'm pretty sure that's where I got the idea, yes.
Committed, including your patch.
--
Peter Eisentraut
>
> Right, this makes a lot of sense, similar to how ri_restrict() combines
> RESTRICT and NO ACTION.
>
I'm pretty sure that's where I got the idea, yes.
On 2019-02-24 00:34, Corey Huinker wrote:
> As I suspected, the code for SET NULL and SET DEFAULT are highly similar
> (see .diff), the major difference being two constants, the order of some
> variable declarations, and the recheck in the set-default case.
>
> The changes were so simple that I
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 1:12 PM Corey Huinker
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:05 AM Peter Eisentraut <
> peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>> ri_triggers.c is endlessly long and repetitive. I want to clean it up a
>> bit (more).
>>
>
> Having just been down this road, I agree that
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:05 AM Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> ri_triggers.c is endlessly long and repetitive. I want to clean it up a
> bit (more).
>
Having just been down this road, I agree that a lot of cleanup is needed
and possible.
> I looked into all
ri_triggers.c is endlessly long and repetitive. I want to clean it up a
bit (more).
I looked into all these switch cases for the unimplemented MATCH PARTIAL
option. I toyed around with how a MATCH PARTIAL implementation would
actually look like, and it likely wouldn't use the existing code
