Re: Question about RI checks

Thanks! I've been mulling this over for weeks; nice to know it wasn't just
staring me in the face...

So in conclusion, the lock avoids raising constraint violation errors in
> a few cases in READ COMMITTED mode. In REPEATABLE READ mode, it converts
> some
> constraint violation errors into serialization failures. Or at least that's
> how it looks to me.
>

Yeah, it had occurred to me that this is one place you might see some
benefit. But waiting around on a potentially irrelevant update, just in
case the RI violation resolves itself, didn't really sound like a net win.
Not to mention the possibility of a deadlock, if the other transaction
updates our PK or adds another reference to it.

Thanks again,
Nick Barnes