Re: SI-read predicate locks on materialized views
Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
From: Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Richard Guo
<guofenglinux@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development
<pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-12-01T07:53:11Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 15:48:21 +0900 Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 05:29:58PM +0900, Yugo NAGATA wrote: > > Thank you for your review. I agree that an isolation test is required. > > The attached patch contains the test using the scenario as explained in > > the previous post. > > Cool, thanks. Sorry for my late reply here. I have put my head on > that for a few hours and could not see why we should not allow that. > So committed the change after a few tweaks to the tests with the use > of custom permutations, mainly. Thank! > While looking at all that, I have looked at the past threads like [1], > just to note that this has never been really mentioned. > > [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1371225929.28496.YahooMailNeo@web162905.mail.bf1.yahoo.com > -- > Michael -- Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
Commits
-
Make materialized views participate in predicate locking
- 43351557d0d2 16.0 landed