From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Lockable views |
Date: | 2017-10-27 05:11:14 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa2ywTctLxnzq4QPpJQeAuGCSam6Y4Q52vFEbcf2KvF4Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> In the attached patch, only automatically-updatable views that do not have
> INSTEAD OF rules or INSTEAD OF triggers are lockable. It is assumed that
> those views definition have only one base-relation. When an auto-updatable
> view is locked, its base relation is also locked. If the base relation is a
> view again, base relations are processed recursively. For locking a view,
> the view owner have to have he priviledge to lock the base relation.
Why is this the right behavior?
I would have expected LOCK TABLE v to lock the view and nothing else.
See http://postgr.es/m/AANLkTi=KupesJHRdEvGfbT30aU_iYRO6zwK+fwwY_sGd@mail.gmail.com
for previous discussion of this topic.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-27 05:20:32 | Re: WIP: BRIN bloom indexes |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-10-27 05:08:43 | Re: proposal: schema variables |