| From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "Alfred Perlstein" <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net>, "Mark Hollomon" <mhh(at)mindspring(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | RE: disallow LOCK on a view - the Tom Lane remix | 
| Date: | 2000-08-29 23:34:48 | 
| Message-ID: | 000001c01211$b8c90660$2801007e@tpf.co.jp | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches | 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alfred Perlstein
> 
> * Mark Hollomon <mhh(at)mindspring(dot)com> [000829 11:26] wrote:
> > Here is a patch against CVS (without my earlier patch)
> > to disallow
> > 
> > LOCK x
> > 
> > if x is a view.
> > 
> > It does not use the SPI interface.
> 
> Waitasec, why??  This can be very useful if you want to atomically lock
> something that sits "in front" of several other tables that you need to
> do something atomically with.
> 
> Does it cause corruption if allowed?
>
If I remember correctly,the problem is "LOCK VIEW" acquires a
lock for the target view itself but doesn't acquire the lock for the
base tables of the view.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2000-08-30 00:23:02 | Re: disallow LOCK on a view - the Tom Lane remix | 
| Previous Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2000-08-29 23:14:00 | Re: disallow LOCK on a view - the Tom Lane remix | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2000-08-30 00:23:02 | Re: disallow LOCK on a view - the Tom Lane remix | 
| Previous Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2000-08-29 23:14:00 | Re: disallow LOCK on a view - the Tom Lane remix |