| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jean-Christian Imbeault <jc(at)mega-bucks(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Perfornamce Q |
| Date: | 2003-01-23 05:50:43 |
| Message-ID: | 23540.1043301043@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Jean-Christian Imbeault <jc(at)mega-bucks(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> But why would they be hurting me? The update is on a column that has no
> constraints on it.
Doesn't matter: any update will fire the foreign-key check trigger.
Whether this is necessary or not I dunno, but someone's thought of
it before: in the code I see
/*
* Note: We cannot avoid the check on UPDATE, even if old and new key
* are the same. Otherwise, someone could DELETE the PK that consists
* of the DEFAULT values, and if there are any references, a ON DELETE
* SET DEFAULT action would update the references to exactly these
* values but we wouldn't see that weired case (this is the only place
* to see it).
*/
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jean-Christian Imbeault | 2003-01-23 06:01:45 | Re: Perfornamce Q |
| Previous Message | Jean-Christian Imbeault | 2003-01-23 05:49:03 | Is there a floating-point division function/operator? |