Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > That's much better, yes. Two things:
> * I'd change the warning about unique key violations into a more general > one about constraints. Foreign key and exclusion constraint are also > affected... I'll see what I can do. > * I wonder if we should make the possible origins a bit more > general as it's perfectly possible to trigger the problem without > foreign keys. Maybe: "can arise when a table row that has been updated > is row locked; that can e.g. happen when foreign keys are used." IIUC, this case only occurs when using the new-in-9.3 types of nonexclusive row locks. I'm willing to bet that the number of applications using those is negligible; so I think it's all right to not mention that case explicitly, as long as the wording doesn't say that foreign keys are the *only* cause (which I didn't). regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers