Thanks for the explanation!
Can these checks be implemented or the data needed is not there and adding
it will only add an overhead for the majority of use cases?
2017-07-19 20:42 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane :
> Luca Looz writes:
> > After some tests it seems that this happens when the same row is covere
Luca Looz writes:
> Thanks for the explanation!
> Can these checks be implemented or the data needed is not there and adding
> it will only add an overhead for the majority of use cases?
It's hard to see how to do much better than we're doing without storing
more data on-disk than is there now.
Luca Looz writes:
> After some tests it seems that this happens when the same row is covered by
> more than 1 update in the same transaction even without any change.
> Is this an expected behavior? Why it happens?
Yes, see comment in RI_FKey_fk_upd_check_required:
* If the original
I was analyzing an update function and i have noticed "Trigger for
constraint" entries for foreign keys that i wasn't using or referring.
After some tests it seems that this happens when the same row is covered by
more than 1 update in the same transaction even without any change.
Here is a dbfidd
