On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 03:21:23PM -0500, Corey Huinker wrote:
> That may have been done because some of the code that will end up here is
> being moved from other files rather than being purely new. My revised patch
> is leaving it as-is for now.
This can be a tricky one. Portions of this new code rely on code that
is much older than it, so this choice is just to be on the safe side
(aka I've chosen that).
> In addition to issues 1 and 4 I added some inheritance-specific tests per
> Paquier's off-list request, and the result is attached.
Thanks. I have tweaked that a bit more, switching to GROUP BY clauses
based on the inherited field, and also added a check for the lock
level we take on the relation, by bundling a call within a
transaction. Then applied the result.
I have a bunch of other changes for the rest of the patch set, that
needs to be refreshed based on the choices we had to deal with for the
clear function. I'll send that in a couple of hours, before moving on
with more reviews next week..
--
Michael
