| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Csaba Nagy" <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, "Richard Huxton" <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, "postgres hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks |
| Date: | 2007-02-05 23:25:33 |
| Message-ID: | 87ejp4w5jm.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>
>> OK, please propose some wording so at least we can get agreement on
>> that.
>
> How about something open-ended like "arrange for updates that do not update
> columns referenced by foreign keys from other tables to avoid being blocked by
> locks from concurrent RI checks"
Hum. Reading back in the thread it seems what I wrote is basically equivalent
to the wording Simon originally proposed.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-02-05 23:37:52 | Logging functions executed by queries in 8.2? |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-02-05 23:21:12 | Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks |