So turning intially deferred on is a suitable solution? It seems
to work OK in this simple test case.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> The locks being grabbed are a bit stronger than they need to be
> (if you want more info, there was a bit of discussion on -hackers
> recently). The updates should block updates on parent of the
> referenced row but don't need to block other child updates but there's
> no current lock level that is quite right.