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

Re: deferred foreign keys

From: Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: deferred foreign keys
Date: 2004-01-05 18:57:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Jan 5, 2004, at 1:38 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:

> I think this is probably the issue with foreign key checks needing an
> exclusive lock, since there is no shared lock that will prevent 
> deletes.

That was my original thought upon reading all the discussion of late 
regarding the FK checking locks.  I figured if I deferred the checks to 
commit, I could save some contention time.  However, if FK checks are 
skipped if the field in question is not updated, what locks would there 
be?  Are they taken even if the checks are not performed on some sort 
of "be prepared" principle?

Vivek Khera, Ph.D.
+1-301-869-4449 x806

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Vivek KheraDate: 2004-01-05 19:02:00
Subject: Re: deferred foreign keys
Previous:From: Stephan SzaboDate: 2004-01-05 18:57:02
Subject: Re: deferred foreign keys

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