Subject triggers, referential integrity actions and constraints execution order
Author IBUNC

We are investigating on execution order of the triggers, referential
integrity actions and constraints in face of a statement posted to the

[ { optional / informative }
There are potencial conflictive situations when the execution order is
relevant. For example, posting a delete to a table with two ref integ
constraints. Executing cascade ref integs before restricted ref integs
can make a transaction to fail due to the restricted ref integ violation
because deletes carryed out in the previos cascade execution. If the
execution order is restricted and then cascade, the transaction does not

SQL99 spec says that exec order must be

triggers before
referential integrity actions for RESTRICTED
referential integrity actions for CASCADE-SET NULL-SET DEFAULT
referential integrity actions for NO ACTION - other constraints (null,
domain, checks ...)
triggers after

(we suspect) It is possible that FB creates a graph of actions and
resolves what path choice (actions sequence) is correct?

We need to know if FB is compliant with SQL99 or another model (graph
creation?), or better, when to read more in how to FB resolves this.
There is doc on this aspect?
There are tests on the test boundle related to this?
What section of source cover this topic?

Thanks in advance to all comments

Campos, Dalto, Allende

Ahora pod�s usar Yahoo! Messenger desde tu celular. Aprend� c�mo hacerlo en Yahoo! M�vil: