Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Stephan Szabo" <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Csaba Nagy" <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>, "Richard Huxton" <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, "postgres hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks
Date: 2007-02-05 23:25:33
Message-ID: 87ejp4w5jm.fsf@stark.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:

> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>
>> OK, please propose some wording so at least we can get agreement on
>> that.
>
> How about something open-ended like "arrange for updates that do not update
> columns referenced by foreign keys from other tables to avoid being blocked by
> locks from concurrent RI checks"

Hum. Reading back in the thread it seems what I wrote is basically equivalent
to the wording Simon originally proposed.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2007-02-05 23:37:52 Logging functions executed by queries in 8.2?
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2007-02-05 23:21:12 Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks