On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 07:53:42 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
I update the patch to fix the lockable view issues.
> >> > > +typedef struct
> >> > > +{
> >> > > + Oid root_reloid;
> >> > > + LOCKMODE lockmode;
> >> > > + bool nowait;
> >> > > + Oid viewowner;
> >> > > + Oi
>> > > +typedef struct
>> > > +{
>> > > +Oid root_reloid;
>> > > +LOCKMODE lockmode;
>> > > +bool nowait;
>> > > +Oid viewowner;
>> > > +Oid viewoid;
>> > > +} LockViewRecurse_context;
>> >
>> > Probably wouldn't hurt to pgindent the larger changes in the pa
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 18:32:53 +0900
Yugo Nagata wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:26:36 -0700
> Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Thank you for your comments. I attach a patch to fix issues
> you've pointed out.
I found a typo in the documentation and attach the updated patch.
Regards,
>
> > Hi,
> >
>
On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:26:36 -0700
Andres Freund wrote:
Thank you for your comments. I attach a patch to fix issues
you've pointed out.
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-03-28 20:26:48 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/lock.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/lock.sgml
> > index b2c7203..96d477c
>> The buildfarm is fairly unhappy, and I think it's because of this patch.
>
> Thanks for the info. Yes, at least prion is unhappy because of the
> patch. I will look into this.
Done. See if the buildarm becomes happy.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss
>> I have just pushed the v10 patch.
>
> The buildfarm is fairly unhappy, and I think it's because of this patch.
Thanks for the info. Yes, at least prion is unhappy because of the
patch. I will look into this.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/in
Tatsuo Ishii writes:
> I have just pushed the v10 patch.
The buildfarm is fairly unhappy, and I think it's because of this patch.
regards, tom lane
Andres,
I have just pushed the v10 patch. Yugo will reply back to your point
but I will look into your review as well.
Thanks.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-03-28 20:26:48 +0900
Hi,
On 2018-03-28 20:26:48 +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/lock.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/lock.sgml
> index b2c7203..96d477c 100644
> --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/lock.sgml
> +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/lock.sgml
> @@ -46,6 +46,11 @@ LOCK [ TABLE ] [ ONLY ] class="parameter">name [ *
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:45:09 +0900 (JST)
> Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
>> >> I found the previous patch was broken and this can't handle
>> >> views that has subqueries as bellow;
>> >>
>> >> CREATE VIEW lock_view6 AS SELECT * from (select * from lock_tbl1) sub;
>> >>
>> >> I fixed this and attach
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:45:09 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> I found the previous patch was broken and this can't handle
> >> views that has subqueries as bellow;
> >>
> >> CREATE VIEW lock_view6 AS SELECT * from (select * from lock_tbl1) sub;
> >>
> >> I fixed this and attached the updat
>> I found the previous patch was broken and this can't handle
>> views that has subqueries as bellow;
>>
>> CREATE VIEW lock_view6 AS SELECT * from (select * from lock_tbl1) sub;
>>
>> I fixed this and attached the updated version including additional tests.
>
> This patch gives a warning whil
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:28:04 +0900
> Yugo Nagata wrote:
>
> I found the previous patch was broken and this can't handle
> views that has subqueries as bellow;
>
> CREATE VIEW lock_view6 AS SELECT * from (select * from lock_tbl1) sub;
>
> I fixed this and attached the updated version includin
On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 23:28:04 +0900
Yugo Nagata wrote:
I found the previous patch was broken and this can't handle
views that has subqueries as bellow;
CREATE VIEW lock_view6 AS SELECT * from (select * from lock_tbl1) sub;
I fixed this and attached the updated version including additional tests
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 11:12:37 -0500
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> But what does that have to do with locking?
> >
> > Well, if the view is not updatable, I think there will be less point
> > to allow to lock the base tables in the view because lockin
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> But what does that have to do with locking?
>
> Well, if the view is not updatable, I think there will be less point
> to allow to lock the base tables in the view because locking is
> typically used in a case when updates are required.
>
> Of
> But what does that have to do with locking?
Well, if the view is not updatable, I think there will be less point
to allow to lock the base tables in the view because locking is
typically used in a case when updates are required.
Of course we could add special triggers to allow to update views t
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:49 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Hmm, true. Why exactly are we imposing the restriction to updateable
>> views, anyway?
>
> In my understanding, because of ambiguity to determine which rows in
> which base tables needs to be modified by just looking at the DML
> against a v
> Hmm, true. Why exactly are we imposing the restriction to updateable
> views, anyway?
In my understanding, because of ambiguity to determine which rows in
which base tables needs to be modified by just looking at the DML
against a view. There could be multiple ways to modify the base
tables.
B
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> True. But the same exact analysis also applies to this definition,
>> which contains no subquery:
>>
>> CREATE VIEW v1 AS SELECT t1.* FROM t1, t2 WHERE t1.i = t2.i;
>
> That's not an updatable view, thus cannot be locked according to the
> p
> True. But the same exact analysis also applies to this definition,
> which contains no subquery:
>
> CREATE VIEW v1 AS SELECT t1.* FROM t1, t2 WHERE t1.i = t2.i;
That's not an updatable view, thus cannot be locked according to the
proposed implementation.
Anyway do you want to allow to lock a
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> We have: CREATE VIEW v1 AS SELECT * FROM t1 WHERE i = (SELECT i FROM t2);
>
> 1. Session A tries to lock v1 (I suppose it tries to acquire lock in
> the order of t1, then t2). A acquires lock on t1 but yet on t2.
>
> 2. Another session B acquir
Robert,
> I just reread those discussions but I don't see that they really make
> any argument for the behavior the patch implements. I see no
> explanation on the thread for why locking a table inside of a subquery
> is more or less likely to cause deadlock than locking one outside of a
> subque
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 8:09 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Initially I thought all base tables including ones in a subquery also
> should be locked like you. But after some discussions with Yugo, I
> agree that locking table in a subquery is less valuable for users (and
> I am afraid it may introduce m
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:21 AM, Thomas Munro
> wrote:
>> About the idea: it makes some kind of sense to me that we should lock
>> the underlying table, in all the same cases that you could do DML on
>> the view automatically. I wonder if this is a problem for the
>> soundness: "Tables appear
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:21 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> About the idea: it makes some kind of sense to me that we should lock
> the underlying table, in all the same cases that you could do DML on
> the view automatically. I wonder if this is a problem for the
> soundness: "Tables appearing in a
On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 09:48:49 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:48 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> Looks good to me. If there's no objection, especially from Thomas
> >> Munro, I will mark this as "ready for committer".
> >
> > No objection from me.
>
> I marked this as
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:48 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Looks good to me. If there's no objection, especially from Thomas
>> Munro, I will mark this as "ready for committer".
>
> No objection from me.
I marked this as "Ready for Committer".
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
En
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:48 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Looks good to me. If there's no objection, especially from Thomas
> Munro, I will mark this as "ready for committer".
No objection from me.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 19:21:04 +1300
Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:48 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >>> You need to DROP VIEW lock_view4 and lock_view5 in the regression
> >>> test as well.
> >>
> >> Thank you for reviewing the patch.
> >>
> >> I fixed this and attached a updated pat
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 6:48 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>> You need to DROP VIEW lock_view4 and lock_view5 in the regression
>>> test as well.
>>
>> Thank you for reviewing the patch.
>>
>> I fixed this and attached a updated patch v6.
>
> Looks good to me. If there's no objection, especially from T
>> You need to DROP VIEW lock_view4 and lock_view5 in the regression
>> test as well.
>
> Thank you for reviewing the patch.
>
> I fixed this and attached a updated patch v6.
Looks good to me. If there's no objection, especially from Thomas
Munro, I will mark this as "ready for committer".
Best
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 13:58:30 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > Attached is the updated patch v5 including fixing SGML and rebase to HEAD.
>
> You need to DROP VIEW lock_view4 and lock_view5 in the regression
> test as well.
Thank you for reviewing the patch.
I fixed this and attached a updat
> Attached is the updated patch v5 including fixing SGML and rebase to HEAD.
You need to DROP VIEW lock_view4 and lock_view5 in the regression
test as well.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 21:30:49 +0900
Yugo Nagata wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:51:41 +1300
> Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 23:39:39 +0900 (JST)
> > > Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > >> Your addition to the doc:
> > >> + Auto
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 20:51:41 +1300
Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 23:39:39 +0900 (JST)
> > Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> Your addition to the doc:
> >> + Automatically updatable views (see )
> >> + that do not have INSTEAD OF tr
On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 11:57 PM, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 23:39:39 +0900 (JST)
> Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> Your addition to the doc:
>> + Automatically updatable views (see )
>> + that do not have INSTEAD OF triggers or INSTEAD
>> + rules are also lockable. When a view is lock
Hi,
The updated patch is attached.
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 23:39:39 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> The patch produces a warning.
>
> /home/t-ishii/lock_view-v3.patch:542: trailing whitespace.
> -- Verify that we can lock a auto-updatable views
> warning: 1 line adds whitespace errors.
Fixe
>> >> > 1) Leave as it is (ignore tables appearing in a subquery)
>> >> >
>> >> > 2) Lock all tables including in a subquery
>> >> >
>> >> > 3) Check subquery in the view
>> >
>> >> > So it seem #1 is the most reasonable way to deal with the problem
>> >> > assuming that it's user's responsibil
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 09:29:11 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > I didn't want to change the interface of view_query_is_auto_updatable()
> > because this might be called from other third-patry software, so I renamed
> > this function to view_query_is_auto_updatable_or_lockable() and added the
>
> I didn't want to change the interface of view_query_is_auto_updatable()
> because this might be called from other third-patry software, so I renamed
> this function to view_query_is_auto_updatable_or_lockable() and added the flag
> to this. I created view_query_is_auto_updatable() as a wrapper of
Hi,
Attached is the updated patch.
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 10:07:48 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> > It would be nice if the message would be something like:
> >> >
> >> > DETAIL: Views that return aggregate functions are not lockable
> You could add a flag to view_query_is_auto_updatable()
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 22:22:33 +0900
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 06:37:06PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > I have created a new entry in CF-2017-1 and registered this thread again.
>
> Fine for me. Thanks for the update. And I guess that you are planning to
> send a new version
Yugo Nagata wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 07:11:14 +0200
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Yugo Nagata 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
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 06:37:06PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> I have created a new entry in CF-2017-1 and registered this thread again.
Fine for me. Thanks for the update. And I guess that you are planning to
send a new version before the beginning of the next commit fest using
the feedback provi
On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 09:44:30 +0900
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 04:19:46PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> > I was busy for and I could not work on this patch. After reading the
> > previous discussion, I still think the behavior of this patch would
> > be right. So, I would like
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 04:19:46PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> I was busy for and I could not work on this patch. After reading the
> previous discussion, I still think the behavior of this patch would
> be right. So, I would like to reregister to CF 2018-1. Do I need to
> create a new entry on CF?
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:29:36 +0900
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> >> In the attached patch, only automatically-updatable views that do not have
> >> INSTEAD OF rules or INSTEAD OF triggers a
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 07:11:14 +0200
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Yugo Nagata 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
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:59:05 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > I'm a bit confused. What is difference between tables and functions
> > in a subquery with regard to view locking? I think also none view queries
> > using a subquery do not care about the changes of tables in the
> > subquery whil
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Yugo Nagata 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
51 matches
Mail list logo
