Re: Referential Integrity and SHARE locks

"Gregory Stark" <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:

> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>
>> OK, please propose some wording so at least we can get agreement on
>> that.
>
> How about something open-ended like "arrange for updates that do not update
> columns referenced by foreign keys from other tables to avoid being blocked by
> locks from concurrent RI checks"

Hum. Reading back in the thread it seems what I wrote is basically equivalent
to the wording Simon originally proposed.

--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com