| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: foreign keys and RI triggers |
| Date: | 2005-05-26 15:28:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20050526082805.A5582@megazone.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> >> Okay, I can't think of cases even with triggers and the like where
> >> removing the check on equal valued rows would give appreciably different
> >> results, but I haven't thought too hard about it.
>
> > Err, except the case that Tom mentions in his message.
>
> But the check could incorporate the same transaction ID test already
> in use. I think Neil is right that it'd be a win to apply the test
> before enqueueing the trigger instead of after.
Good point. That would help in many cases anyway.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2005-05-26 15:51:10 | Re: foreign keys and RI triggers |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-26 15:26:41 | Re: foreign keys and RI triggers |