Re: Backpatch FK changes to 7.3 and 7.2? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Jan Wieck |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Backpatch FK changes to 7.3 and 7.2? |
Date | |
Msg-id | 3E92A377.F2F63C2C@Yahoo.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Backpatch FK changes to 7.3 and 7.2? (Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone23.bigpanda.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Backpatch FK changes to 7.3 and 7.2?
Re: Backpatch FK changes to 7.3 and 7.2? |
List | pgsql-hackers |
Stephan Szabo wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > > > > The changes I committed to address most of the FK deadlock problems > > > > reported can easily be applied to the 7.3 and 7.2 source trees as well. > > > > > > > > Except for a slight change in the text of the error message that gets > > > > thrown "if one tries to delete a referenced PK for which a FK with ON > > > > DELETE SET DEFAULT exists" (it's a rare case, believe me), this patch > > > > would qualify for backpatching. The unnecessary FOR UPDATE lock of > > > > referenced rows could be counted as a bug. > > > > > > > > Opinions? > > > > > > Since I seem to suffer from these horrible deadlock problems all the > > > time, I'd like it to be backported to 7.3... > > > > Me too! > > As a note, this'll solve some of the deadlocks on fk update (generally the > key values aren't touched) but not insert related ones (two rows inserted > to the same primary key causing one to wait and possible deadlocks) > > In any case, why don't we get a patch against 7.3, and make an > announcement and let people who are interested use it and test it. With > in-field testing it'd probably be safe enough. :) Here it is. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #*** ri_triggers.c.orig Fri Apr 4 10:41:45 2003 --- ri_triggers.c Sun Apr 6 12:36:54 2003 *************** *** 391,403 **** } /* ! * Note: We cannot avoid the check on UPDATE, even if old and new key ! * are the same. Otherwise, someone could DELETE the PK that consists ! * of the DEFAULT values, and if there are any references, a ON DELETE ! * SET DEFAULT action would update the references to exactly these ! * values but we wouldn't see that weired case (this is the only place ! * to see it). */ if (SPI_connect() != SPI_OK_CONNECT) elog(WARNING, "SPI_connect() failed in RI_FKey_check()"); --- 391,409 ---- } /* ! * No need to check anything if old and new references are the ! * same on UPDATE. */ + if (TRIGGER_FIRED_BY_UPDATE(trigdata->tg_event)) + { + if (ri_KeysEqual(fk_rel, old_row, new_row, &qkey, + RI_KEYPAIR_FK_IDX)) + { + heap_close(pk_rel, RowShareLock); + return PointerGetDatum(NULL); + } + } + if (SPI_connect() != SPI_OK_CONNECT) elog(WARNING, "SPI_connect() failed in RI_FKey_check()"); *************** *** 2787,2792 **** --- 2793,2808 ---- heap_close(fk_rel, RowExclusiveLock); + /* + * In the case we delete the row who's key is equal to the + * default values AND a referencing row in the foreign key + * table exists, we would just have updated it to the same + * values. We need to do another lookup now and in case a + * reference exists, abort the operation. That is already + * implemented in the NO ACTION trigger. + */ + RI_FKey_noaction_del(fcinfo); + return PointerGetDatum(NULL); /* *************** *** 3077,3082 **** --- 3093,3108 ---- elog(WARNING, "SPI_finish() failed in RI_FKey_setdefault_upd()"); heap_close(fk_rel, RowExclusiveLock); + + /* + * In the case we updated the row who's key was equal to the + * default values AND a referencing row in the foreign key + * table exists, we would just have updated it to the same + * values. We need to do another lookup now and in case a + * reference exists, abort the operation. That is already + * implemented in the NO ACTION trigger. + */ + RI_FKey_noaction_upd(fcinfo); return PointerGetDatum(NULL);
pgsql-hackers by date: