Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't think this is right. If the original tuple was inserted by a
subtransaction of our transaction, it will have been checked at
subtransaction subcommit, no?
I don't think the subtransaction subcommit will do
OK, that's what I get for opining before checking the code ;-).
Your *cerebral call graph visits* have a knack of being spot on, way
more than often. :-)
Will apply.
Thanks, Tom. We're also back-patching this, right?
--
Affan Salman
EnterpriseDB Corporation
Affan Salman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thanks, Tom. We're also back-patching this, right?
Yeah, working on that now.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Affan Salman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With some time to spare, I thought I'd submit a quick-fix patch to the
issue I reported here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-07/msg00339.php
I don't think this is right. If the original
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
Affan Salman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With some time to spare, I thought I'd submit a quick-fix patch to the
issue I reported here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-07/msg00339.php
I don't think this is right. If the original
Tom Lane wrote:
I don't think this is right. If the original tuple was inserted by a
subtransaction of our transaction, it will have been checked at
subtransaction subcommit, no?
No, it will be checked at main transaction commit; the immediate_only
flag is FALSE for
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On the other hand what happens if you have constraints not deferred, insert a
record, then set constraints deferred and update it?
After having a coffee this is obviously not a problem since if you have
constraints not deferred then the constraint was
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 00:12 +0100, Affan Salman wrote:
With some time to spare, I thought I'd submit a quick-fix patch to the
issue I reported here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-07/msg00339.php
This should preclude optimizing away a deferred RI trigger if the
Affan Salman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With some time to spare, I thought I'd submit a quick-fix patch to the
issue I reported here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-07/msg00339.php
I don't think this is right. If the original tuple was inserted by a
subtransaction of
