Re: RI_FKey_check: foreign key constraint blocks parall

From: "Mikheev, Vadim" <VMIKHEEV(at)sectordata(dot)com>
To: "'Stephan Szabo'" <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>
Cc: Peter Schindler <pschindler(at)synchronicity(dot)com>, pg-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RI_FKey_check: foreign key constraint blocks parall
Date: 2002-11-16 01:39:11
Message-ID: 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E325186E1@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > > void
> > > heap_mark4fk_lock_acquire(Relation relation, HeapTuple tuple) {

Just wonder how are you going to implement it - is it by using
some kind of "read-locks", ie FK transaction "locks" PK to prevent
delete (this is known as "pessimistic" approach)?
About two years ago we discussed with Jan "optimistic" approach
with using "dirty reads", when PK/FK transactions do not check
existence of FK/PK untill constraint should be checked (after
statement processed for immediate mode, at the commit time/
set constraint immediate for deferred constraints).

So, at the check time, FK transaction uses dirty reads to know
about existence/"status" of PK:
1. No PK -> abort.
2. PK (inserted?/)deleted/updated/selected for update by concurrent
transaction P -> wait for P commit/abort (just like transactions do
for concurrent same-row-update); go to 1.
3. Else (PK exists and no one changing it right now) -> proceed.

PK transaction does the same:
1. No FK -> proceed.
2. FK inserted/updated/selected for update by concurrent transaction
F -> wait for F commit/abort; go to 1.

This would be more in MVCC style -:)

Vadim

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephan Szabo 2002-11-16 02:03:13 Re: RI_FKey_check: foreign key constraint blocks parall
Previous Message Stephan Szabo 2002-11-15 23:40:34 Fwd: [HACKERS] RI_FKey_check: foreign key constraint blocks parallel