Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This is what I am wondering. Whether it is done this way due to
> >> expecation/standard, or as an implementation side effect. In the
> >> latter case it is fixable.
>
> > I don't see how this could break a standard.
>
> Actually, I think it does, because we went to great len
"Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Schuller wrote:
>> This is what I am wondering. Whether it is done this way due to
>> expecation/standard, or as an implementation side effect. In the
>> latter case it is fixable.
> I don't see how this could break a standard.
Actually, I think
Peter Schuller wrote:
[about a serialization error caused by a foreign key constraint]
>> Transaction 2 now issues an INSERT on "atable". This requires a
>> RowShareLock on the index row of the index on "othertable" that
>> is referenced by the foreign key constraint. But the corresponding
>> inde
