"Albe Laurenz" <laurenz.albe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Peter Schuller wrote: >> This is what I am wondering. Whether it is done this way due to >> expecation/standard, or as an implementation side effect. In the >> latter case it is fixable. > I don't see how this could break a standard. Actually, I think it does, because we went to great lengths to cause this case to error out. It would be much simpler, code-wise, if the RI checks just always used a current snapshot and didn't worry about whether serializability had been violated. (Albe's description of the implementation is largely fiction, but the conclusion is accurate: we throw error if the referenced PK row has been updated since the serializable transaction started. The exact nature of the update is not considered.) 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
