| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Royce Ausburn <royce(dot)ml(at)inomial(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, desmodemone <desmodemone(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, l(dot)denardo(at)miriade(dot)it, f(dot)dalmaso(at)miriade(dot)it |
| Subject: | Re: BUG or strange behaviour of update on primary key |
| Date: | 2011-10-18 03:24:15 |
| Message-ID: | 25406.1318908255@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Royce Ausburn <royce(dot)ml(at)inomial(dot)com> writes:
> On 18/10/2011, at 1:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I don't think it's a bug for it to work. It'd probably work in
>> PostgreSQL too, if you inserted (2) first and then (1). It's just
>> that, as Tom says, if you want it to be certain to work (rather than
>> depending on the order in which the rows are inserted), you need the
>> checks to be deferred.
> Do deferred checks such as this have a memory impact for bulk updates?
Yes indeed. That's why immediate check is the default.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-10-18 03:41:35 | Re: BUG or strange behaviour of update on primary key |
| Previous Message | Royce Ausburn | 2011-10-18 02:19:56 | Re: BUG or strange behaviour of update on primary key |