From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views |
Date: | 2018-02-02 01:09:35 |
Message-ID: | 20180202.100935.1529961642458182235.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:21 AM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> About the idea: it makes some kind of sense to me that we should lock
>> the underlying table, in all the same cases that you could do DML on
>> the view automatically. I wonder if this is a problem for the
>> soundness: "Tables appearing in a subquery are ignored and not
>> locked."
>
> Yeah, that seems like a pretty bad idea. It's exposing what is
> basically an implementation detail to users.
Initially I thought all base tables including ones in a subquery also
should be locked like you. But after some discussions with Yugo, I
agree that locking table in a subquery is less valuable for users (and
I am afraid it may introduce more deadlock chances). See upthead
discussions.
> I think that if we
> change the rules for which subqueries get flattened in a future
> release, then the behavior will also change. That seems bad.
I doubt it could happen in the future but if that happend we should
disallow locking on such views.
> I also think that this is a bad idea for another reason, which is that
> it leaves us with no syntax to say that you want to lock the view
> itself, and pg_dump wants do that if only we had syntax for it.
I agree with Yugo and Alvaro. It's better to have a separate syntax
for locking views itself.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20171226143407.6wjzjn42pt54qskm@alvherre.pgsql
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2018-02-02 01:16:04 | BUG #15044: materialized views incompatibility with logical replication in postgres 10 |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-02-02 01:05:55 | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.0 |