Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: foreign keys and RI triggers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: foreign keys and RI triggers
Date: 2005-05-26 15:26:41
Message-ID: 2583.1117121201@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
>> Okay, I can't think of cases even with triggers and the like where
>> removing the check on equal valued rows would give appreciably different
>> results, but I haven't thought too hard about it.

> Err, except the case that Tom mentions in his message.

But the check could incorporate the same transaction ID test already
in use.  I think Neil is right that it'd be a win to apply the test
before enqueueing the trigger instead of after.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephan SzaboDate: 2005-05-26 15:28:47
Subject: Re: foreign keys and RI triggers
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-05-26 15:25:19
Subject: Re: Regression failures: time, timetz, horology

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group