From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | Markus Bertheau <twanger(at)bluetwanger(dot)de>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 7.4.2 allows foreign key violation |
Date: | 2004-08-06 16:25:43 |
Message-ID: | 20097.1091809543@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> It also looks like before triggers returning NULL can break them.
Or a BEFORE trigger that overrides the attempted field update.
> I think we'd been worried about the added cost of doing the check when
> the average case doesn't have this problem but we should probably just
> eat it. In practice I think it's one line of code per action function
> (on update set default already does it).
Already does what? I see nothing in there that would override either
triggers or rules...
> Any opinions out there?
I seem to recall some discussions to the effect that having these
updates subject to rules/triggers is not necessarily bad. For example,
if you were using a rule or trigger to log all updates of table B
someplace else, you'd probably be annoyed to find the RI updates
bypassing your logging mechanism.
There's no perfect solution ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | webb | 2004-08-06 16:56:10 | Re: Data version idea (please discuss) |
Previous Message | ruben | 2004-08-06 16:24:12 | Re: Slow after VACUUM, fast after DROP-CREATE INDEX |