On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:59 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > On 2020/02/14 10:28, Amit Langote wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:39 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> > > wrote: > >> We can verify that even "LOCK TABLE ONLY" command works > >> expectedly on the inherited tables by keeping those SQLs in the > >> regression test. So what about not removing these SQLs? > > > > Hmm, that test becomes meaningless with the behavior change we are > > introducing, but I am okay with not removing it. > > Only this regression test seems to verify LOCK TABLE ONLY command. > So if we remove this, I'm afraid that the test coverage would be reduced.
Oh, I didn't notice that this is the only instance of testing LOCK TABLE ONLY. I would've expected that the test for: 1. checking that ONLY works correctly with LOCK TABLE, and 2. checking permission works correctly with ONLY are separate. Anyway, we can leave that as is. > > However, I added a test showing that locking child table directly doesn't > > work. > > > > Attached updated patch. > > Thanks for updating the patch! > Barring any objection, I will commit the patch. Thank you. Regards, Amit
