On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
That's what I would expect as well.. But I may be missing something. I
am marking the patch as returned with feedback as this has not been
replied in one month.
--
Michael
