| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views |
| Date: | 2018-02-06 03:57:08 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobPcA_d7XiXd265TgaKU1pSs6H16S4DsSG4vLL7W59gXQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> Hmm, true. Why exactly are we imposing the restriction to updateable
>> views, anyway?
>
> In my understanding, because of ambiguity to determine which rows in
> which base tables needs to be modified by just looking at the DML
> against a view. There could be multiple ways to modify the base
> tables.
But what does that have to do with locking?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2018-02-06 04:02:10 | Re: Crash in partition-wise join involving dummy partitioned relation |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-02-06 03:56:39 | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |