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.
I know I've already rolled constraint triggers into production, being
able to use FOR KEY SHARE locks would be good.
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-11-21 20:36:59|
|Subject: Re: Refactoring on DROP/ALTER SET SCHEMA/ALTER RENAME TO statement|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-11-21 20:08:33|
|Subject: Re: pgsql: Do missed autoheader run for previous