From: | Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: question: foreign key constraints and AccessExclusive locks |
Date: | 2013-01-07 02:22:31 |
Message-ID: | CAKuK5J1STudDTewSZXW5LqtFEcTu2nkUhNtA=cd8gxYiqmvYkg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 6 January 2013 03:08, Jon Nelson <jnelson+pgsql(at)jamponi(dot)net> wrote:
>> When adding a foreign key constraint on tableA which references
>> tableB, why is an AccessExclusive lock on tableB necessary? Wouldn't a
>> lock that prevents writes be sufficient, or does PostgreSQL have to
>> modify *both* tables in some fashion? I'm using PostgreSQL 8.4 on
>> Linux.
>
> FKs are enforced by triggers currently. Adding triggers requires
> AccessExclusiveLock because of catalog visibility issues; you are
> right that a lower lock is eventually possible.
>
> SQLStandard requires the check to be symmetrical, so adding FKs
> requires a trigger on each table and so an AEL is placed on tableB.
I've read and re-read this a few times, and I think I understand.
However, could you clarify "you are right that a lower lock is
eventually possible" for me, please?
--
Jon
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2013-01-07 02:29:42 | Re: too much pgbench init output |
Previous Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2013-01-07 00:54:48 | Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database" |