All, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Yeah, the point of the "gotcha" is that a FOR UPDATE specified *outside* a > security-barrier view would act as though it had appeared *inside* the > view, since it effectively gets pushed down even though outer quals don't.
Alright, I've committed this with an updated note regarding the locking,
and a few additional regression tests (which appear to have upset some
of the buildfarm- will look at that...).
Please let me know if you see any issues. I'm planning to spend
more-or-less all of tomorrow looking over the RLS patch. As it's rather
large, I'm not sure I'll be able to get through it all, but I'm gonna
give it a go.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
