Marc Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes in this case, T1 must abort because the record it was going to
> update has disappeared from underneath it.  I don't see how this is
> significantly different from the same race for the record if the table
> had no RI constraints.  The only difference that I can see, is that T1
> now has some locks that it must relinquish as the transaction aborts.

No, the difference is there would have been no error at all before;
if the record were deleted before T1 got to it then it wouldn't have
attempted to update it.  I really don't think you can make it work
to perform updates or deletes on a record you have not yet locked.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to