Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs
От
Robert Haas
Тема
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs
Дата
Msg-id
AANLkTinkbEikDBhP28QryQp_rHgtbJ3rPIT82DemcxpE@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs (Dmitry Fefelov)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Jim Nasby <decibel@decibel.org>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Dmitry Fefelov <fozzy@ac-sw.com>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Nicolas Barbier <nicolas.barbier@gmail.com>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Nicolas Barbier <nicolas.barbier@gmail.com>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Marko Tiikkaja <marko.tiikkaja@cs.helsinki.fi>
Re: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
SHARE locks vs. DELETE in SERIALIZABLE mode (Was: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs) Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>
Re: SHARE locks vs. DELETE in SERIALIZABLE mode
(Was: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs) "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Re: SHARE locks vs. DELETE in SERIALIZABLE mode (Was:
Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs) Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: SHARE locks vs. DELETE in SERIALIZABLE mode (Was: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs) Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>
Re: SHARE locks vs. DELETE in SERIALIZABLE mode (Was:
Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs) Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
Re: SHARE locks vs. DELETE in SERIALIZABLE mode (Was: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs) Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Dmitry Fefelov wrote: >> 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? Try it, with the example above. I think you'll find that it doesn't. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления