| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt |
| Date: | 2011-12-14 15:36:54 |
| Message-ID: | 7284.1323877014@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 06:36:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Yeah, I've been wondering about this: do we have a problem already with
>> exclusion constraints? I mean, if a concurrent inserter doesn't see the
>> tuple that we've marked here as deleted while we toast it, it could
>> result in a violated constraint, right? I haven't built a test case to
>> prove it.
> Does the enforcement code for exclusion constraints differ significantly from
> the ordinary unique constraint code?
It's an entirely separate code path (involving an AFTER trigger). I
don't know if there's a problem, but Alvaro's right to worry that it
might behave differently.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-12-14 15:57:25 | Re: psql output locations |
| Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2011-12-14 15:30:02 | Re: review: CHECK FUNCTION statement |