Re: Atomicity?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Naz Gassiep <naz(at)mira(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Atomicity?
Date: 2006-08-28 20:49:17
Message-ID: 17795.1156798157@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> Sure, UNIQUE constraints are not deferrable. With normal constraints
> you can defer the check until the end of transaction and be in an
> inconsistant state for while. However, PostgreSQL doesn't support this
> for uniqueness checks.

Actually, what the spec says is (SQL92 4.10.1)

The checking of a constraint depends on its constraint mode within
the current SQL-transaction. If the constraint mode is immedi-
ate, then the constraint is effectively checked at the end of
each SQL-statement. If the constraint mode is deferred, then the
constraint is effectively checked when the constraint mode is
changed to immediate either explicitly by execution of a <set con-
straints mode statement>, or implicitly at the end of the current
SQL-transaction.

So even for a non-deferred unique constraint, it should be legal to
update multiple rows to new non-conflicting values within a single
UPDATE command. Plus, as Martijn says, we have no support at all
for the defer-to-end-of-transaction case.

We've discussed this before, and I thought it was on the TODO list,
but AFAICS the only entry there is

* Allow DEFERRABLE UNIQUE constraints?

which is misfiled under "Triggers" and doesn't cover the existing
spec violation anyway. Bruce?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2006-08-28 20:51:05 Re: Atomicity?
Previous Message Richard Broersma Jr 2006-08-28 20:42:13 Re: Atomicity?