| 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 03:40:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobqqrm01B=7cQORw4msHKkCH5u9b5GUou+weOriNKN6uw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> True. But the same exact analysis also applies to this definition,
>> which contains no subquery:
>>
>> CREATE VIEW v1 AS SELECT t1.* FROM t1, t2 WHERE t1.i = t2.i;
>
> That's not an updatable view, thus cannot be locked according to the
> proposed implementation.
Hmm, true. Why exactly are we imposing the restriction to updateable
views, anyway?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-02-06 03:49:29 | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |
| Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2018-02-06 03:26:51 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views |