On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 12:01 PM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2026 09:39:17 +0900 > Amit Langote <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 12:56 AM Yugo Nagata <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Thank you all for the review and comments. > > > > > > > Yes Amit, I agree that SPI_execute_snapshot() comments do provide some > > > > context on AFTER triggers, but I still feel the newly added comment > > > > in ri_PerformCheck() gives additional context on why the fire_triggers > > > > is > > > > set to false. > > > > > > Yes, that is what I intended. The existing comments on > > > SPI_execute_snapshot() explain how the fire_triggers parameter works, > > > but I would like to add a comment explaining why the AFTER trigger for > > > RI needs to set it to false. > > > > > > If the explanation of the effect of fire_triggers seems redundant, I am > > > fine with the following shorter version: > > > > > > + * Set fire_triggers to false to ensure that check triggers fire > > > after all > > > + * RI updates on the same row are complete. > > > > Thanks for the updated patch. Yes, adding the comment might be good, > > but I'd suggest a small tweak: > > > > + * Set fire_triggers to false to ensure that AFTER triggers > > are queued in > > + * the outer query's after-trigger context and fire after all > > RI updates on > > + * the same row are complete, rather than immediately. > > > > Two changes: > > > > * "check triggers" -> "AFTER triggers", since fire_triggers=false > > affects any AFTER triggers queued during the SPI execution, not just > > RI check triggers. > > > > * mention of the outer query's after-trigger context to explain the > > mechanism by which the deferral works. > > > > Does that additional context help? > > Thank you for the suggestion. > That looks good to me. It is clearer than the previous version.
Ok, will push the attached. -- Thanks, Amit Langote
v3-0001-Add-comment-explaining-fire_triggers-false-in-ri_.patch
Description: Binary data
