From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Backpatch FK changes to 7.3 and 7.2? |
Date: | 2003-04-08 02:13:24 |
Message-ID: | 20030407190845.Q42461-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > > The changes I committed to address most of the FK deadlock problems
> > > reported can easily be applied to the 7.3 and 7.2 source trees as well.
> > >
> > > Except for a slight change in the text of the error message that gets
> > > thrown "if one tries to delete a referenced PK for which a FK with ON
> > > DELETE SET DEFAULT exists" (it's a rare case, believe me), this patch
> > > would qualify for backpatching. The unnecessary FOR UPDATE lock of
> > > referenced rows could be counted as a bug.
> > >
> > > Opinions?
> >
> > Since I seem to suffer from these horrible deadlock problems all the
> > time, I'd like it to be backported to 7.3...
>
> Me too!
As a note, this'll solve some of the deadlocks on fk update (generally the
key values aren't touched) but not insert related ones (two rows inserted
to the same primary key causing one to wait and possible deadlocks)
In any case, why don't we get a patch against 7.3, and make an
announcement and let people who are interested use it and test it. With
in-field testing it'd probably be safe enough. :)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Medi Montaseri | 2003-04-08 02:15:09 | Re: Arrays ... need clarification.... |
Previous Message | J. M. Brenner | 2003-04-08 02:01:35 | Failed dependencies: perl(Pg) is needed by postgresql-contrib |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Peacetree | 2003-04-08 03:11:26 | Re: No merge sort? |
Previous Message | Ron Peacetree | 2003-04-08 02:11:07 | Re: No merge sort? |