(Sorry if this breaks the thread history; on mobile)
> > Am I right in thinking that the "locking gotcha" only happens if you
> > create a security_barrier view conaining a "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE"? If
> > so, that seems like rather a niche case - not that that means we
> > shouldn't warn people about it.
>
> Hmm, the 'gotcha' I was referring to was the issue discussed upthread
> around rows getting locked to be updated which didn't pass all the quals
> (they passed the security_barrier view's, but not the user-supplied
> ones), which could happen during a normal 'update' against a
> security_barrier view, right? I didn't think that would require the
> view definition to be 'FOR UPDATE';
It doesn't require the view to be defined FOR UPDATE.
I'll try to write an isolstiontester case to donstrate this on the weekend.
