Re: Changes to not deferred FK in 8.0.3 to 7.4?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Changes to not deferred FK in 8.0.3 to 7.4? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 12706.1121703489@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Changes to not deferred FK in 8.0.3 to 7.4? (Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Changes to not deferred FK in 8.0.3 to 7.4?
Re: Changes to not deferred FK in 8.0.3 to 7.4? Re: Changes to not deferred FK in 8.0.3 to 7.4? |
Список | pgsql-general |
Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> writes: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote: >> I don't see why. > Except that before I think the order would have looked like (for 1 row) > Originating Action > Trigger A on originating table that does update > Trigger B on originating table that does update > Trigger A1 caused by A > Trigger B1 caused by B > I think now it acts like: > Originating Action > Trigger A on originating table that does update > Trigger A1 caused by A > Trigger B on originating table that does update > Trigger B1 caused by B Ah, of course. So that could explain Janning's difference in results without having to assume any rearrangement from pg_dump (not but what we shouldn't take a second look at pg_dump's behavior anyway). >> Do you think that's enough, or do we need to add more mechanism to >> ensure that even non-deferred constraint checks fire after all >> referential actions are complete? > I think that's probably enough for now. We probably will need to do > something, but since we still haven't managed to work out all of these > timing problems, I think it needs a bunch of going over the spec before > trying to actually do any changes. Agreed, this doesn't seem like an area for hasty solutions. The short-term answer for Janning is definitely to make his check constraints deferred, but we should look at whether our current ordering of non-deferred checks is really per spec or not. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: