On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:59 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> On 2020/02/14 10:28, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:39 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> >> We can verify that even "LOCK TABLE ONLY" command works
> >> expectedly on the inherited tables by keeping those SQLs in the
> >> regression test. So what about not removing these SQLs?
> >
> > Hmm, that test becomes meaningless with the behavior change we are
> > introducing, but I am okay with not removing it.
>
> Only this regression test seems to verify LOCK TABLE ONLY command.
> So if we remove this, I'm afraid that the test coverage would be reduced.
Oh, I didn't notice that this is the only instance of testing LOCK
TABLE ONLY. I would've expected that the test for:
1. checking that ONLY works correctly with LOCK TABLE, and
2. checking permission works correctly with ONLY
are separate. Anyway, we can leave that as is.
> > However, I added a test showing that locking child table directly doesn't work.
> >
> > Attached updated patch.
>
> Thanks for updating the patch!
> Barring any objection, I will commit the patch.
Thank you.
Regards,
Amit
