Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|
If a row that potentially violates a deferred exclusion constraint is
HOT-updated later in the same transaction, the exclusion constraint would
be reported as violated when the check finally occurs, even if the row(s)
the new row originally conflicted with have since been removed. This
happened because the wrong TID was passed to check_exclusion_constraint(),
causing the live HOT-updated row to be seen as a conflicting row rather
than recognized as the row-under-test.
Per bug #13148 from Evan Martin. It's been broken since exclusion
constraints were invented, so back-patch to all supported branches.
|
|
This was not changed in HEAD, but will be done later as part of a
pgindent run. Future pgindent runs will also do this.
Report by Tom Lane
Backpatch through all supported branches, but not HEAD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
support any indexable commutative operator, not just equality. Two rows
violate the exclusion constraint if "row1.col OP row2.col" is TRUE for
each of the columns in the constraint.
Jeff Davis, reviewed by Robert Haas
|
|
The current implementation fires an AFTER ROW trigger for each tuple that
looks like it might be non-unique according to the index contents at the
time of insertion. This works well as long as there aren't many conflicts,
but won't scale to massive unique-key reassignments. Improving that case
is a TODO item.
Dean Rasheed
|