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.
