On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 13:01 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Note that the KEY UPDATE lock would be an internal option, not exposed
> to SQL. I think we already have enough extensions in this area. We are
> forced to expose KEY SHARE because RI triggers get to it via SPI, but I
> would be happy to avoid doing it if I knew how.
Right now, FKs aren't really very special, they are mostly just
syntactic sugar (right?). This proposal would make FKs special internal
mechanisms, and I don't see the benefit in doing so.
[ I didn't read through the previous threads yet, so perhaps this was
already discussed. ]
Regards,
Jeff Davis