Thank you Stephan, for the quick reply.
Please, do you know if your fixes will be available soon,
or are they already in the development release or any of the production
releases ?
> Yes, it's because it sees the intermediate
> state (6,1) when it shouldn't (it processes
> each foreign key separately and does the cascade
> update which places it in an "invalid" state
> since the 1 key no longer exists).
>
> I believe the fixes I've been working on for deferred
> constraints will make this case work as well.
>
> > Bob Soeters (bob(at)iway(dot)nl) reports a bug with a severity of 2
> > Short Description Two foreign keys in one table both referencing same
> > record in primary table gives error on update of primary table