Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs

> The referential integrity triggers contain some extra magic that isn't
> easily simulatable in userland, and that is necessary to make the
> foreign key constraints airtight.  We've discussed this previously but
> I don't remember which thread it was or the details of when things
> blow up.  I think it's something like this: the parent has a tuple
> that is not referenced by any child.  Transaction 1 begins, deletes
> the parent tuple (checking that it has no children), and pauses.
> Transaction 2 begins, adds a child tuple that references the parent
> tuple (checking that the parent exists, which it does), and commits.
> Transaction 1 commits.

Will SELECT ... FOR SHARE not help?

Regargs, 
Dmitry