On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Vivek Khera wrote: > > On Jan 5, 2004, at 1:57 PM, Stephan Szabo wrote: > > > But, if he's updating the fk table but not the keyed column, it should > > no > > longer be doing the check and grabbing the locks. If he's seeing it > > grab > > the row locks still a full test case would be handy because it'd > > probably > > mean we missed something. > > > > I'm not *sure* it is taking any locks. The transactions appear to be > running lock step (operating on different parts of the same pair of > tables) and I was going to see if deferring the locks made the > difference. It is my feeling now that it will not. However, if there > is a way to detect if locks are being taken, I'll do that. I'd like to > avoid dropping and recreating the foreign keys if I can since it takes > up some bit of time on the table with 20+ million rows.
The only way I can think of to see the locks is to do just one of the operations and then manually attempting to select for update the associated pk row. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly