On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:29:36 +0900 Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Yugo Nagata <nag...@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_...@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. I was busy for and I could not work on this patch. After reading the previous discussion, I still think the behavior of this patch would be right. So, I would like to reregister to CF 2018-1. Do I need to create a new entry on CF? or should I change the status to "Moved to next CF"? > -- > Michael > -- Yugo Nagata <nag...@sraoss.co.jp>
