On 2013-10-23 21:20:58 +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote: > On 23 October 2013 21:08, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2013-10-23 20:51:27 +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote: > >> Hmm, my first thought is that rewriteTargetView() should be calling > >> AcquireRewriteLocks() on viewquery, before doing too much with it. > >> There may be sub-queries in viewquery's quals (and also now in its > >> targetlist) and I don't think the relations referred to by those > >> sub-queries are getting locked. > > > > Well, that wouldn't follow the currently documented rule ontop > > of QueryRewrite: > > * NOTE: the parsetree must either have come straight from the parser, > > * or have been scanned by AcquireRewriteLocks to acquire suitable locks. > > > > It might still be the right thing to do, but it seems suspicious that > > the rules need to be tweaked like that. > > > > Well it matches what already happens in other places in the rewriter > --- see rewriteRuleAction() and ApplyRetrieveRule(). It's precisely > because the rule action's query hasn't come from the parser that it > needs to be processed in this way.
I really don't know that are of code that well, fortunately I never had to wade around it much so far... Reading your explanation and a bit of the code your plan sound sane. Are you going to propose a patch? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
