Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoa2ywTctLxnzq4QPpJQeAuGCSam6Y4Q52vFEbcf2KvF4Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views  (Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] proposal: schema variables
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WIP: BRIN bloom indexes