* Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> > Hmm, the 'gotcha' I was referring to was the issue discussed upthread 
> > around rows getting locked to be updated which didn't pass all the quals 
> > (they passed the security_barrier view's, but not the user-supplied 
> > ones), which could happen during a normal 'update' against a 
> > security_barrier view, right?  I didn't think that would require the 
> > view definition to be 'FOR UPDATE';
> It doesn't require the view to be defined FOR UPDATE.

Ok, great, glad I got that correct. :)

> I'll try to write an isolstiontester case to donstrate this on the weekend.

Great, thanks.  I'll take a stab at writing up the 'gotcha' note tonight
or tomorrow.

        Thanks again,


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to