On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Yugo Nagata <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote: >> In the attached patch, only automatically-updatable views that do not have >> INSTEAD OF rules or INSTEAD OF triggers are lockable. It is assumed that >> those views definition have only one base-relation. When an auto-updatable >> view is locked, its base relation is also locked. If the base relation is a >> view again, base relations are processed recursively. For locking a view, >> the view owner have to have he priviledge to lock the base relation. > > Why is this the right behavior? > > I would have expected LOCK TABLE v to lock the view and nothing else. > > See > http://postgr.es/m/AANLkTi=kupesjhrdevgfbt30au_iyro6zwk+fwwy_...@mail.gmail.com > for previous discussion of this topic.
That's what I would expect as well.. But I may be missing something. I am marking the patch as returned with feedback as this has not been replied in one month. -- Michael
