"Albe Laurenz" <laurenz.albe@wien.gv.at> writes:
> Peter Schuller wrote:
>> This is what I am wondering. Whether it is done this way due to
>> expecation/standard, or as an implementation side effect. In the
>> latter case it is fixable.
> I don't see how this could break a standard.
Actually, I think it does, because we went to great lengths to cause
this case to error out. It would be much simpler, code-wise, if the
RI checks just always used a current snapshot and didn't worry about
whether serializability had been violated.
(Albe's description of the implementation is largely fiction, but the
conclusion is accurate: we throw error if the referenced PK row has been
updated since the serializable transaction started. The exact nature
of the update is not considered.)
regards, tom lane
