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

Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt
Date: 2011-11-21 20:26:55
Message-ID: m2aa7pfchc.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It's already the case that RI triggers require access to special
>> executor features that are not accessible at the SQL level.  I don't
>> think the above argument is a compelling reason for exposing more
>> such features at the SQL level.  All we need is that C-coded functions
>> can get at them somehow.
>
> I kinda agree with Simon.  In general, if we don't need to expose
> something at the SQL level, then sure, let's not.  But it seems weird
> to me to say, well, we have four lock modes internally, and you can
> get to three of them via SQL.  To me, that sort of inconsistency feels
> like a wart.

+1

I know I've already rolled constraint triggers into production, being
able to use FOR KEY SHARE locks would be good.

Regards,
-- 
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-11-21 20:36:59
Subject: Re: Refactoring on DROP/ALTER SET SCHEMA/ALTER RENAME TO statement
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2011-11-21 20:08:33
Subject: Re: pgsql: Do missed autoheader run for previous commit.

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