Difference between RESTRICT and NO ACTION

Granular understanding of DEFERRABLE constraints

In the realm of PostgreSQL, the subtlety between NO ACTION and RESTRICT is further highlighted with DEFERRABLE constraints. A DEFERRABLE foreign key constraint permits you to violate the relationship temporarily within a transaction, provided it is resolved by the transaction's end.

NO ACTION teamed up with DEFERRABLE Constraints

• Pairing NO ACTION with DEFERRABLE offers flexibility for complex transaction logic, mimicking the "create now, validate later" motto. For example, deleting a parent row and re-inserting with modifications within the same transaction is plausible without the database breaking a sweat. The check gates are opened at the end, tolerating temporary constraint violations.

-- Starting off the day, feeling fresh
BEGIN;
DELETE FROM parents WHERE id = 1; 
INSERT INTO parents(id, name) VALUES(1, 'NameChanged'); 
-- No constraints yelling yet, I can feel the wind in my hair
COMMIT;
-- Here come the constraints, did I forget anything?


RESTRICT playing with DEFERRABLE Constraints

• On the other hand, RESTRICT isn't so malleable; it isn't DEFERRABLE. It's the strict Professor who checks homework at the start of the period. Therefore, it ensures referential integrity immediately and averts any violations as soon as they're beckoning.

-- Ready to get some work done
BEGIN;
DELETE FROM children WHERE parent_id = 1;
-- Oh, right! Should've checked homework. (RESTRICT comes in, a bit too early)
ROLLBACK;


Modes of DEFERRABLE constraints: INITIALLY DEFERRED vs INITIALLY IMMEDIATE

• DEFERRABLE constraints come with two flavors: INITIALLY DEFERRED or INITIALLY IMMEDIATE. While INITIALLY DEFERRED acts like a procrastinator putting off all checks till the end of the transaction, INITIALLY IMMEDIATE is an immediate executor, enforcing checks at the end of each statement.

The role of SET CONSTRAINTS

• SET CONSTRAINTS is like your personal assistant, helping you dictate when DEFERRABLE constraint-checks should occur depending on your transactional needs.

Case-wise use and best practices

Whether to go with NO ACTION or RESTRICT depends on the context and requirements of your database operations:

For Multi-step Transactions

• If your transactions have multiple layers like an onion, choose NO ACTION with DEFERRABLE constraints. It provides the respite of allowing temporary foreign key constraint violations.

For Immediate Data Integrity

• Opt for RESTRICT if your priority is maintaining righteousness from the get-go, making sure even midway operations maintaining foreign key sacredness.

Application Logic Dictation

• The type of application logic may be your compass while navigating towards Deferred Checks. Bear in mind that deferred checks can be a double-edged sword—they might give better performance with the cost of potential complexity and risk.

A Chat on Practical Usage

• At the end of the day, while RESTRICT has a tighter leash lending more control, NO ACTION with DEFERRABLE gives you the scope of strategic flexibility in transactions. Both weather different hurricanes in database design, so understanding your use case can make sailing smoother.

Which to choose when?

Deciding to execute constraints with NO ACTION or RESTRICT should be a calculated move within your database design with the awareness of their fine-print behavioral traits:

Transaction Isolation Level: Read Committed vs. Serializable

• The transaction isolation level you operate in can be a strategic determinant for when and why to use NO ACTION with DEFERRABLE.

The Why behind DEFERRABLE

• Got DEFERRABLE constraints in use? Make sure you have a clear defense for your choices—such as needing to reshuffle rows with unique constraints or performing batch updates that may introduce temporary invalid states.

Consider the Architectural Impact

• Weigh in potential impacts on your system's architecture, such as how a constraint's function could influence replications and failovers in scenarios where transaction boundaries matter.