* Craig Ringer (cr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > 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.
Ok, great, glad I got that correct. :)
> I'll try to write an isolstiontester case to donstrate this on the weekend.
Great, thanks. I'll take a stab at writing up the 'gotcha' note tonight
or tomorrow.
Thanks again,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
