Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views

On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:29:36 +0900
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That's what I would expect as well.. But I may be missing something. I
> am marking the patch as returned with feedback as this has not been
> replied in one month.

I was busy for and I could not work on this patch. After reading the
previous discussion, I still think the behavior of this patch would
be right. So, I would like to reregister to CF 2018-1. Do I need to
create a new entry on CF? or should I change the status to
"Moved to next CF"?

> --
> Michael
>

--
Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>