Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rash...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> Am I right in thinking that the "locking gotcha" only happens if you
>> create a security_barrier view conaining a "SELECT ... FOR UPDATE"? If
>> so, that seems like rather a niche case - not that that means we
>> shouldn't warn people about it.
> 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'; if that's required then it would
> seem like we're actually doing what the user expects based on their view
> definition..
Yeah, the point of the "gotcha" is that a FOR UPDATE specified *outside* a
security-barrier view would act as though it had appeared *inside* the
view, since it effectively gets pushed down even though outer quals don't.
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
