Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes: > I also don't quite understand the argument of application relying on > this behavior. If they do, that's wrong anyway, so the risk of > operation disruptions for shared environments would matter more in my > opinion.
I'm not totally sure about that. If you suppose that the only purpose of doing SELECT FOR UPDATE is to clear the way for a subsequent UPDATE, then people who are using it would certainly have had to grant the necessary UPDATE permission to let the second command go through. But I'm not 100% sure that that's the only use-case. S-F-U could be useful strictly for mutual-exclusion perhaps. Or maybe your application does S-F-U to get row locks, then does DELETE rather than UPDATE. Still, it seems unlikely that somebody would be doing those sorts of things through two levels of view. So maybe the set of applications that would get broken is vanishingly small. regards, tom lane