Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: foreign keys and RI triggers

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: foreign keys and RI triggers
Date: 2005-05-27 05:39:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.

Speaking of which, does anyone see a reason why RI_FKey_keyequal_upd() 
is implemented as a pseudo-trigger function -- e.g. taking a pointer to 
a TriggerData? It seems a kludge.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hans-Jürgen SchönigDate: 2005-05-27 06:30:55
Subject: Re: WAL replay failure after file truncation(?)
Previous:From: Qingqing ZhouDate: 2005-05-27 04:47:31
Subject: Re: unsafe use of hash_search(... HASH_ENTER ...)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group