On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 13:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> >> What do you mean by referential integrity? I don't believe you can
> >> construct a foreign key problem at any transaction isolation level.
> > I mean that if someone attempts to maintain referential integrity with
> > SQL code, without using explicit locks, it is not reliable.
> > Presumably the implementation of foreign keys in PostgreSQL takes this
> > into account and blocks the kind of behavior shown below. This
> > behavior would not occur with true serializable transactions.
> IIRC the RI code has to fudge the normal serializable-snapshot behavior
> in order to guarantee no constraint violation --- it has to be aware of
> concurrent changes that would otherwise be invisible to a serializable
...just to add that this is exactly as required by SQL Standard, i.e. RI
works in Read Committed mode even within a Serializable transaction.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2009-01-02 19:25:47|
|Subject: Re: posix_fadvise v22 |
|Previous:||From: Alex Hunsaker||Date: 2009-01-02 18:56:47|
|Subject: Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4?|