(Sorry if this breaks the thread history; on mobile) > > 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';
It doesn't require the view to be defined FOR UPDATE. I'll try to write an isolstiontester case to donstrate this on the weekend. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
