Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMK13ij662FZKkc6ZcwA1EVd_Dj1DozhTS-jQc1dftKCow@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to foreign key locks, 2nd attempt  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:

> So Noah Misch proposed using the FOR KEY SHARE syntax, and that's what I
> have implemented here.  (There was some discussion that instead of
> inventing new SQL syntax we could pass the necessary lock mode
> internally in the ri_triggers code.  That can still be done of course,
> though I haven't done so in the current version of the patch.)

FKs are a good short hand, but they aren't the only constraint people
implement. It can often be necessary to write triggers to enforce
complex constraints. So user triggers need access to the same
facilities that ri triggers uses. Please keep the syntax.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt
Next
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Core Extensions relocation