From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL SQL List <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joost Kraaijeveld <J(dot)Kraaijeveld(at)Askesis(dot)nl> |
Subject: | Re: Foreign key reference counting strategy? |
Date: | 2006-10-15 00:20:10 |
Message-ID: | 13667.1160871610@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 07:58:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, I don't think so, because the DELETE will already be holding
>> exclusive lock on the doomed PK row, which any would-be inserters of
>> matching FK rows will be blocked on. AFAICS the DELETE should go
>> through and then the inserters will fail.
> Unless the inserters got there first. I just tested both ways; if
> the insert acquires the lock first then the delete fails, but if the
> delete acquires the lock first then the insert fails.
Well, if the inserters get a lock on the PK row before the DELETE does,
then of course. I was just disputing the assertion that doing IF EXISTS
in an after trigger would add a new way for the DELETE to fail. At that
point, any uncommitted inserts must be blocked waiting for the delete.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2006-10-15 01:07:26 | Re: Foreign key reference counting strategy? |
Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2006-10-15 00:11:26 | Re: Foreign key reference counting strategy? |