Hallo Tom,
> Morus Walter writes:
> > are there downsides of making foreign keys deferrable (but initially
> > immediate) for updates, when the transaction does not set the
> > constraint behaviour to deferred?
>
> > I'd expect that to have the same behaviour as non deferrable foreign
> > keys.
Morus Walter writes:
> are there downsides of making foreign keys deferrable (but initially
> immediate) for updates, when the transaction does not set the
> constraint behaviour to deferred?
> I'd expect that to have the same behaviour as non deferrable foreign
> keys.
> What I don't understand
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Morus Walter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> are there downsides of making foreign keys deferrable (but initially
> immediate) for updates, when the transaction does not set the
> constraint behaviour to deferred?
>
> I'd expect that to have the same behaviour as non deferrable f
Hi,
are there downsides of making foreign keys deferrable (but initially
immediate) for updates, when the transaction does not set the
constraint behaviour to deferred?
I'd expect that to have the same behaviour as non deferrable foreign
keys.
What I don't understand is, why is non deferrable the
