Re: [PERFORM] deferred foreign keys

2004-01-05 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 11:33:40 -0500, Vivek Khera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks. Then it sorta makes it moot for me to try deferred checks, since the Pimary and Foreign keys never change once set. I wonder what is making the transactions appear to run lockstep, then... I think this

Re: [PERFORM] deferred foreign keys

2004-01-05 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 11:33:40 -0500, Vivek Khera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks. Then it sorta makes it moot for me to try deferred checks, since the Pimary and Foreign keys never change once set. I wonder what is making the

Re: [PERFORM] deferred foreign keys

2004-01-05 Thread Vivek Khera
On Jan 5, 2004, at 1:38 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I think this is probably the issue with foreign key checks needing an exclusive lock, since there is no shared lock that will prevent deletes. That was my original thought upon reading all the discussion of late regarding the FK checking

Re: [PERFORM] deferred foreign keys

2004-01-05 Thread Vivek Khera
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

Re: [PERFORM] deferred foreign keys

2004-01-05 Thread Stephan Szabo
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

Re: [PERFORM] deferred foreign keys

2004-01-05 Thread Rod Taylor
On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 14:48, Stephan Szabo wrote: 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

Re: [PERFORM] deferred foreign keys

2004-01-05 Thread Stephan Szabo
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 14:48, Stephan Szabo wrote: 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

Re: [PERFORM] deferred foreign keys

2003-12-31 Thread Vivek Khera
One more question: does the FK checker know to skip checking a constraint if the column in question did not change during an update? That is, if I have a user table that references an owner_id in an owners table as a foreign key, but I update fields other than owner_id in the user table, will it