| From: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks |
| Date: | 2007-02-02 12:04:12 |
| Message-ID: | 45C328BC.5090404@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Csaba Nagy wrote:
> The reason of the occasional orphan rows is not completely clear to me,
> but it must be some kind of race condition while
> inserting/deleting/?updating concurrently the parent/child tables.
I guess the following sequence would generate a orphaned row.
A: executes "insert into table_child parent_id=1"
B: executes "delete from table_parent where id=1"
A: RI trigger checks for matching row in table_parent
B: The row with id=1 is marked as deleted in table_parent
A: The new row with parent_id=1 is inserted into table_child
B: The delete is commited
A: The insert is comitted.
Any ordering that marks the row as deleted between the execution
of the ri-trigger and the insertion of the new row would lead
to the same result..
greetings, Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gavin Sherry | 2007-02-02 12:15:10 | Re: Bitmap index thoughts |
| Previous Message | Csaba Nagy | 2007-02-02 11:01:54 | Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks |