| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Naz Gassiep <naz(at)mira(dot)net>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Atomicity? |
| Date: | 2006-08-28 20:52:44 |
| Message-ID: | 200608282252.45608.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> 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.
Note that even a nondeferred unique constraint would let the command
proceed because a nondeferred constraint is checked after the
statement, not at seemingly random points during it.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-08-28 21:02:12 | Re: Postgresql mentioned on Newsforge MySQL article |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-08-28 20:51:05 | Re: Atomicity? |