Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94444634085
	for <pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 24 May 2010 11:22:33 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 78226-04 for
	<pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 24 May 2010 14:22:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D599633B7E
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 May 2010 11:22:26 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o4OEMMVb008630;
	Mon, 24 May 2010 10:22:22 -0400 (EDT)
To: Louis-David Mitterrand <vindex+lists-pgsql-sql@apartia.org>
cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: safely exchanging primary keys? 
In-reply-to: <20100524085101.GA21249@apartia.fr> 
References: <20100524085101.GA21249@apartia.fr>
Comments: In-reply-to Louis-David Mitterrand
	<vindex+lists-pgsql-sql@apartia.org>
	message dated "Mon, 24 May 2010 10:51:09 +0200"
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 10:22:22 -0400
Message-ID: <8629.1274710942@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201005/106
X-Sequence-Number: 34154

Louis-David Mitterrand <vindex+lists-pgsql-sql@apartia.org> writes:
> When I run that function it seems the foreign keys are not properly
> updated and the data ends up in a mess.

Yeah?  Could we see an actual example of what you're talking about?
And which PG version is this?

			regards, tom lane