| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "'Michael J Schout'" <mschout(at)gkg(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: The lightbulb just went on... |
| Date: | 2000-10-19 14:11:58 |
| Message-ID: | 8784.971964718@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
>> SELECT session_data, id
>> FROM sessions
>> WHERE id = ?
>> FOR UPDATE
>>
>> I think part of my problem might be that sessions is a view
>> and not a table,
> Did you create an on update do instead rule ?
> This is currently not done automatically for views,
> thus views without additional "create rule"s are select only.
> But, I am wondering whether the "for update" places the correct lock ?
Hmm, good point! I'm not sure what "select for update" on a view ought
to do, but I am pretty sure that the code will not do anything useful
or sensible for this case...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-10-19 14:29:31 | Re: time stops within transaction |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-10-19 13:16:55 | Re: Re: pg_dump docs |