"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
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alex Hunsaker||Date: 2009-01-02 18:56:47|
|Subject: Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-01-02 18:44:48|
|Subject: Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4? |