Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Lockable views

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 09:29:11 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:

> > I didn't want to change the interface of view_query_is_auto_updatable()
> > because this might be called from other third-patry software, so I renamed
> > this function to view_query_is_auto_updatable_or_lockable() and added the flag
> > to this. I created view_query_is_auto_updatable() as a wrapper of this function.
> > I also made view_query_is_lockable() that returns a other message than 
> > view_query_is_auto_updatable().
> > 
> >> On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:59:05 +0900 (JST)
> >> Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> >> > 1) Leave as it is (ignore tables appearing in a subquery)
> >> > 
> >> > 2) Lock all tables including in a subquery
> >> > 
> >> > 3) Check subquery in the view 
> > 
> >> > So it seem #1 is the most reasonable way to deal with the problem
> >> > assuming that it's user's responsibility to take appropriate locks on
> >> > the tables in the subquery.
> > 
> > I adopted #1 and I didn't change anything about this.
> 
> Looks good to me except that the patch lacks documents and the
> regression test needs more cases. For example, it needs a test for the
> case #1 above: probably using pg_locks to make sure that the tables
> appearing in the subquery do not hold locks.

Attached is the update patch, v3. I add some regression test and
the documentation.

> 
> Best regards,
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp


-- 
Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>