On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 12:47 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/15/24 09:21, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 11:37 AM Adrian Klaver
> <adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> I don't think it is entirely coincidental that 1210 is the only shown
> user_id with a modified_on value that is in proximity to the delete
> error.
>
>
> I don't think so either.
>
> My suspicion is that actions are not happening in the exact order
> you think they are.
>
>
> modified_on is CURRENT_TIMESTAMP or NOW() or somesuch. I'm not sure,
> because I'm not privy to the code.
>
> But I'm printing the system time in bash before every statement.
That is why I wrote 'Time travel?'.
I suspect the modified_on time in the table is not accurately
representing when the row is modified.
That JBDC code is pretty slow...
>
> I would think that combining DELETE FROM
> rel_group_user; and DELETE FROM public.access_user; in a single
> transaction would be a good start to fixing this.
>
>
> That is in fact what I'm working on now. There are 26 tables, and they
> must be done in a specific order when deleting, and the reverse while
> inserting.
>
> postgres_fdw would make this easier...
It can't be installed?
Less bureaucratic overhead to write a script.
