Hallo Tom,
> Morus Walter <morus.walter.ml@googlemail.com> writes:
> > are there downsides of making foreign keys deferrable (but initially
> > immediate) for updates, when the transaction does not set the
> > constraint behaviour to deferred?
>
> > I'd expect that to have the same behaviour as non deferrable foreign
> > keys.
> > What I don't understand is, why is non deferrable the default, then.
>
> Because the SQL standard says so.
Ok. Understood.
> I don't believe there is any actual
> penalty for deferrable within the PG implementation, but perhaps there
> is in other systems' implementations.
>
Thanks a lot for your help.
Morus
