Hallo Tom, > Morus Walter <morus.walter...@googlemail.com> 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.
Ok. Understood. > I don't believe there is any actual > penalty for deferrable within the PG implementation, but perhaps there > is in other systems' implementations. > Thanks a lot for your help. Morus -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
