KaiGai Kohei <kai...@ak.jp.nec.com> writes: > Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> What's the point of doing SELECT FOR UPDATE if you're not actually going >> to UPDATE the row? Having separate permissions for SELECT FOR UPDATE and >> UPDATE seems useless.
> I wonder why SELECT FOR UPDATE need ACL_UPDATE, although the statement > itself does not modify any of the given relation. Because it blocks competing transactions in exactly the same way as an UPDATE does. I agree with Heikki --- there is no apparent value in having a separate permission bit for this. Given that AclMode is 3/4ths full already, I'm not for inventing new privilege types without a very strong use-case. A separate bit for SELECT FOR SHARE might possibly make sense given the strength-of-locking argument. But doing both would eat half of the available bits, and bring nearer the day that we need a different representation for AclMode. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers