Message-ID: <4BA002DC.1050700@archonet.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:14:52 +0000
From: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.9pre) Gecko/20100217 Lightning/1.0b1 Shredder/3.0.3pre
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
CC: Tony Cebzanov <tonyceb@andrew.cmu.edu>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Avoiding cycles in a directed graph
References: <4B9FDFDE.5030005@andrew.cmu.edu> <4B9FE752.4080709@archonet.com>
	<14113.1268771643@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4B9FEEE8.1060404@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<14550.1268773752@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <14550.1268773752@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 16/03/10 21:09, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tony Cebzanov<tonyceb@andrew.cmu.edu>  writes:
>> I'm okay with running the big, fat WITH RECURSIVE query in my insert
>> trigger if I have to -- it won't be great for performance, but I don't
>> expect this to be a frequent operation, so I'll accept the performance
>> hit if it works.
>
>> Unfortunately I can't even get that working.  Here's the (not at all
>> functional) trigger I've got right now, which only detects the cycle
>> *after* it's been inserted, which is of no help at all.  Any way I can
>> modify this to do the right thing?
>
> Run it in an AFTER trigger?
>
> If you don't expect this to be common, maybe you could fix the
> concurrency issue by taking a table-wide lock that locks out
> other writers.

Surely SELECT FOR UPDATE on the parents would be sufficient? If there's 
no overlap between (currently non-cyclic) graphs being altered then 
there can't be any conflict.

-- 
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd