From: Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL SQL List <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Cc: Joost Kraaijeveld <J.Kraaijeveld@Askesis.nl>
Subject: Re: Foreign key reference counting strategy?
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:07:26 -0600
Message-ID: <20061015010725.GA21149@winnie.fuhr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <13667.1160871610@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <1160828741.28838.9.camel@panoramix>
<4530EB84.4050904@logix-tt.com>
<20061014234844.GA20342@winnie.fuhr.org>
<13525.1160870286@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20061015001126.GA20713@winnie.fuhr.org>
<13667.1160871610@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 08:20:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Fuhr <mike@fuhr.org> writes:
> > Unless the inserters got there first. I just tested both ways; if
> > the insert acquires the lock first then the delete fails, but if the
> > delete acquires the lock first then the insert fails.
>
> Well, if the inserters get a lock on the PK row before the DELETE does,
> then of course. I was just disputing the assertion that doing IF EXISTS
> in an after trigger would add a new way for the DELETE to fail.
My intent wasn't to assert that IF EXISTS adds a new way for the
DELETE to fail. I was just pointing out that the test "if no
referencing rows exist then delete the referenced row" isn't
foolproof, viz., the DELETE can fail even though IF EXISTS said
there were no referencing rows.
--
Michael Fuhr
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: mike@fuhr.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, J.Kraaijeveld@Askesis.nl
Subject: Re: Foreign key reference counting strategy?
In-Reply-To: <20061015010725.GA21149@winnie.fuhr.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox