Re: foreign key locks, 2nd attempt
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-11-19T09:21:51Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Try to avoid running with a full fsync request queue.
- 7f242d880b5b 9.1.0 cited
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > So Noah Misch proposed using the FOR KEY SHARE syntax, and that's what I > have implemented here. (There was some discussion that instead of > inventing new SQL syntax we could pass the necessary lock mode > internally in the ri_triggers code. That can still be done of course, > though I haven't done so in the current version of the patch.) FKs are a good short hand, but they aren't the only constraint people implement. It can often be necessary to write triggers to enforce complex constraints. So user triggers need access to the same facilities that ri triggers uses. Please keep the syntax. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services