On 31 August 2012 07:59, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 August 2012 20:05, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> None of this new code kicks in for non-security barrier views, so the
>>> kinds of plans I posted upthread remain unchanged in that case. But
>>> now a significant fraction of the patch is code added to handle
>>> security barrier views. Of course we could simply say that such views
>>> aren't updatable, but that seems like an annoying limitation if there
>>> is a feasible way round it.
>>
>> Maybe it'd be a good idea to split this into two patches: the first
>> could implement the feature but exclude security_barrier views, and
>> the second could lift that restriction.
>>
>
> Yes, I think that makes sense.
> I should hopefully get some time to look at it over the weekend.
>
Here's an updated patch for the base feature (without support for
security barrier views) with updated docs and regression tests.
Regards,
Dean
