On 18/10/2011, at 1:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM, desmodemone <desmodemone@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Seems an Oracle bug not Postgresql one!
>
> I don't think it's a bug for it to work. It'd probably work in
> PostgreSQL too, if you inserted (2) first and then (1). It's just
> that, as Tom says, if you want it to be certain to work (rather than
> depending on the order in which the rows are inserted), you need the
> checks to be deferred.
Do deferred checks such as this have a memory impact for bulk updates?
