On Tue, 2011-08-09 at 13:01 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Note that the KEY UPDATE lock would be an internal option, not exposed > to SQL. I think we already have enough extensions in this area. We are > forced to expose KEY SHARE because RI triggers get to it via SPI, but I > would be happy to avoid doing it if I knew how.
Right now, FKs aren't really very special, they are mostly just syntactic sugar (right?). This proposal would make FKs special internal mechanisms, and I don't see the benefit in doing so. [ I didn't read through the previous threads yet, so perhaps this was already discussed. ] Regards, Jeff Davis -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers