On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> Here's my current work in progress for 8.1 devel related to fixing the
> timing issues with referential actions having their checks run on
> intermediate states. I've only put in a simple test that failed against
> 8.0 in the regression patch and regression still passes for me. There's
> still an outstanding question of whether looping gives the correct result
> in the presence of explicit inserts and set constraints immediate in
> before triggers.
As Darcy noticed, the patch as given does definately still have problems
with before triggers. I was able to construct a case that violates the
constraint with an update in a before delete trigger. I think this might
be why the spec has the wierd timing rules for before triggers on cascaded
deletes such that the deletions happen before the before triggers.
We have a similar problem for before triggers that update the rows that
are being cascade updated. The following seems to violate the constraint
for me on 8.0.3:
drop table pk cascade;
drop table fk cascade;
drop function fk_move();
create table pk(a int primary key);
create table fk(a int references pk on delete cascade on update cascade, b
int);
create function fk_move() returns trigger as '
begin
raise notice '' about to move for % '', old.b;
update fk set b=b-1 where b > old.b;
return new;
end;' language 'plpgsql';
create trigger fkmovetrig before update on fk for each row execute
procedure fk_move();
insert into pk values(1);
insert into pk values(2);
insert into fk values(1,1);
insert into fk values(1,2);
insert into fk values(2,3);
select * from pk;
select * from fk;
update pk set a = 3 where a = 1;
select * from pk;
select * from fk;
This gives me (3,1), (1,1) and (2,2) as the rows in fk where the (1,1) row
is invalid. This is obviously wrong, but the question is, what is the
correct answer? Should the update in the before trigger trying to change
b on a row that no longer has a reference have errored?
