From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Cristian Cruz <danielcristian(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #6226: Broken foreign key stored on database (parent deleted with children still readable, BUG#6225 Update) |
Date: | 2011-10-05 14:57:54 |
Message-ID: | 1317826416-sup-836@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Excerpts from Daniel Cristian Cruz's message of mié oct 05 10:00:36 -0300 2011:
> 2011/9/26 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
>
> >
> > Please see if bug #6123 applies to this case.
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org/msg181541.html
>
>
> I guess, yes, it's related, because we had a trigger that deletes a row,
> while other foreign key constraint is updating the row setting null.
>
> But the thread is almost a book, and I am confused. It's a bug or do I need
> to change my schema?
Well, some people say it's a bug, others say it's not; and even if it
is, changing it means backwards incompatible behavior, so *if* it is
patched, it will only change the behavior on a future release, not
whatever you're using.
> Where can I change it to avoid it?
I don't know enough about the problem to help you there, sorry.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-05 15:23:15 | Re: BUG #6240: About - postgreswdinit.sql |
Previous Message | Pavel Holec | 2011-10-05 13:37:54 | Re: BUG #6233: pg_dump hangs with Access Violation C0000005 |