We do not have rules on the tables.
I find manipulating PG dictionary can allow violating RI data to enter
[mailto:pgsql-admin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 4:36 PM
To: Lee Wu
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] bad data with Foreign Key constraint
"Lee Wu" <Lwu(at)mxlogic(dot)com> writes:
> I have found that there are some foreign keys in our detail tables
> there are not primary keys in master tables.
> Yes, we have FK constraints on detail tables.
> I could not think how it can happen. PG (7.3.2) does not have "disable
> constraint" like Oracle, does it?
Hm, you don't have any weird rules on these tables do you? I see
the following in the 7.3.5 commit logs:
2003-10-30 22:57 wieck
* src/: backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c,
test/regress/sql/foreign_key.sql (REL7_3_STABLE): Fix for
referential integrity violation when a qualified ON INSERT rule
split the query into one INSERT and one UPDATE where the UPDATE
then hit's the just created row without modifying the key fields
again. In this special case, the new key slipped in totally
Also, I find the following in 7.3.3:
2003-03-27 09:33 tgl
* src/: backend/commands/trigger.c, backend/executor/execMain.c,
include/commands/trigger.h (REL7_3_STABLE): GetTupleForTrigger
use outer transaction's command counter for time qual checking,
GetCurrentCommandId. Per test case from Steve Wolfe.
I don't recall the implications of this one in detail anymore, but I
think it was triggered by updates inside functions. You might want to
check the archives from back then to see if what Steve was doing looks
anything like stuff your own apps do.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
pgsql-admin by date
|Next:||From: Thomas F. O'Connell||Date: 2004-06-21 21:57:17|
|Subject: pg_restore usage|
|Previous:||From: lise chhay||Date: 2004-06-21 16:14:43|