Thanks! I've been mulling this over for weeks; nice to know it wasn't just staring me in the face...
So in conclusion, the lock avoids raising constraint violation errors in > a few cases in READ COMMITTED mode. In REPEATABLE READ mode, it converts > some > constraint violation errors into serialization failures. Or at least that's > how it looks to me. > Yeah, it had occurred to me that this is one place you might see some benefit. But waiting around on a potentially irrelevant update, just in case the RI violation resolves itself, didn't really sound like a net win. Not to mention the possibility of a deadlock, if the other transaction updates our PK or adds another reference to it. Thanks again, Nick Barnes
