On 18/10/2011, at 1:00 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 7:30 PM, desmodemone <desmodem...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Seems an Oracle bug not Postgresql one! > > I don't think it's a bug for it to work. It'd probably work in > PostgreSQL too, if you inserted (2) first and then (1). It's just > that, as Tom says, if you want it to be certain to work (rather than > depending on the order in which the rows are inserted), you need the > checks to be deferred.
Do deferred checks such as this have a memory impact for bulk updates? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
