| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jan Wieck" <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in FOREIGN KEY |
| Date: | 2001-01-27 05:25:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20411.980573124@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Because I don't know details about trigger stuff, I may be
> misunderstanding. As far as I see, KEY_CHANGED stuff
> requires to log every event about logged tuples.
I just realized that myself. The code was still doing it the hard
way (eg, logging *both* before and after events for each tuple),
but it does seem necessary to log all events if there is either an
UPDATE or DELETE deferred trigger.
> However I'm suspicious if KEY_CHANGED check is necessary.
> Removing KEY_CHANGED stuff seems to solve the TODO
> FOREIGN KEY INSERT & UPDATE/DELETE in transaction "change violation"
> though it may introduce other bugs.
I suspect it just masks the problem by preventing the trigger code
from executing ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-27 05:31:19 | Re: This script will crash the connection |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-01-27 05:20:19 | Re: Bug in FOREIGN KEY |