On 2015/02/10 7:23, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On 9 February 2015 at 21:17, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Etsuro Fujita
>>>>> I noticed that when updating security barrier views on foreign tables,
>>>>> we fail to give FOR UPDATE to selection queries issued at ForeignScan.
>>>
>> I've looked into this a fair bit more over the weekend and the issue
>> appears to be that the FDW isn't expecting a do-instead sub-query.
>> I've been considering how we might be able to address that but havn't
>> come up with any particularly great ideas and would welcome any
>> suggestions. Simply having the FDW try to go up through the query would
>> likely end up with too many queries showing up with 'for update'. We
>> add the 'for update' to the sub-query before we even get called from
>> the 'Modify' path too, which means we can't use that to realize when
>> we're getting ready to modify rows and therefore need to lock them.
>>
>> In any case, I'll continue to look but would welcome any other thoughts.
> Sorry, I didn't have time to look at this properly. My initial thought
> is that expand_security_qual() needs to request a lock on rows coming
> from the relation it pushes down into a subquery if that relation was
> the result relation, because otherwise it won't have any locks, since
> preprocess_rowmarks() only adds PlanRowMarks to non-target relations.
That seems close to what I had in mind; expand_security_qual() needs to
request a FOR UPDATE lock on rows coming from the relation it pushes
down into a subquery only when that relation is the result relation and
*foreign table*.
Thanks for dicussing this issue!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
