Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> It's already the case that RI triggers require access to special >> executor features that are not accessible at the SQL level. I don't >> think the above argument is a compelling reason for exposing more >> such features at the SQL level. All we need is that C-coded functions >> can get at them somehow. > > I kinda agree with Simon. In general, if we don't need to expose > something at the SQL level, then sure, let's not. But it seems weird > to me to say, well, we have four lock modes internally, and you can > get to three of them via SQL. To me, that sort of inconsistency feels > like a wart.
+1 I know I've already rolled constraint triggers into production, being able to use FOR KEY SHARE locks would be good. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
