On 30 August 2012 20:05, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> None of this new code kicks in for non-security barrier views, so the
>> kinds of plans I posted upthread remain unchanged in that case. But
>> now a significant fraction of the patch is code added to handle
>> security barrier views. Of course we could simply say that such views
>> aren't updatable, but that seems like an annoying limitation if there
>> is a feasible way round it.
> Maybe it'd be a good idea to split this into two patches: the first
> could implement the feature but exclude security_barrier views, and
> the second could lift that restriction.
Yes, I think that makes sense.
I should hopefully get some time to look at it over the weekend.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2012-08-31 08:03:34|
|Subject: Cascading replication and recovery_target_timeline='latest'|
|Previous:||From: Amit Kapila||Date: 2012-08-31 05:12:20|
|Subject: Re: wal_buffers|