Morus Walter <morus.walter.ml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > are there downsides of making foreign keys deferrable (but initially > immediate) for updates, when the transaction does not set the > constraint behaviour to deferred? > I'd expect that to have the same behaviour as non deferrable foreign > keys. > What I don't understand is, why is non deferrable the default, then. Because the SQL standard says so. I don't believe there is any actual penalty for deferrable within the PG implementation, but perhaps there is in other systems' implementations. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
