| From: | Royce Ausburn <royce(dot)ml(at)inomial(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | desmodemone <desmodemone(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, l(dot)denardo(at)miriade(dot)it, f(dot)dalmaso(at)miriade(dot)it |
| Subject: | Re: BUG or strange behaviour of update on primary key |
| Date: | 2011-10-18 02:19:56 |
| Message-ID: | 99408B08-369C-4ACA-98DF-057313513BE3@inomial.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18/10/2011, at 1:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM, desmodemone <desmodemone(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Seems an Oracle bug not Postgresql one!
>
> I don't think it's a bug for it to work. It'd probably work in
> PostgreSQL too, if you inserted (2) first and then (1). It's just
> that, as Tom says, if you want it to be certain to work (rather than
> depending on the order in which the rows are inserted), you need the
> checks to be deferred.
Do deferred checks such as this have a memory impact for bulk updates?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-10-18 03:24:15 | Re: BUG or strange behaviour of update on primary key |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-10-18 02:14:53 | Re: HeapTupleHeaderAdvanceLatestRemovedXid doing the wrong thing with multixacts |