Re: Problem (bug?) with deferred foreign key checks?

From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
To: Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder <avbidder(at)fortytwo(dot)ch>
Cc: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Diana Senn <diana(at)fortytwo(dot)ch>
Subject: Re: Problem (bug?) with deferred foreign key checks?
Date: 2002-06-10 16:09:22
Message-ID: 20020610090200.O67911-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


On 10 Jun 2002, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:

> Why is it not possible to temporarily have illegal values in a table,
> and update them during the transaction to point to real entries in the
> 'super' table?

This was a bug due to not noticing that a row was invalidated. It's
partially fixed in current sources (the below works for me). Someone
asked about this bug recently and got the patch (I missed a few things
when doing it so you have to be careful). If you go through the archives
you should find it. The related patch (for cases if you were to have
updated super away and made a new super row for the value) isn't completed
yet, but there's a temporary one.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephan Szabo 2002-06-10 16:10:42 Re: [SQL] VIEWs and FOREIGN keys
Previous Message Mourad EL HADJ MIMOUNE 2002-06-10 16:03:38 MAX TABLE TUPLES and MAX ARRAY SIZE