Wed Jul 24 12:19:23 PDT 2013
- Previous message: [Slony1-bugs] [Bug 302] New: Slony functions unnecessarily lock pg_catalog tables for update
- Next message: [Slony1-bugs] [Bug 303] New: Slony Watchdog failed starting up the child process
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
http://www.slony.info/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=302 --- Comment #1 from Christopher Browne <cbbrowne at ca.afilias.info> 2013-07-24 12:19:23 PDT --- There appears to be a need to do the FOR UPDATE, in that this was introduced to prevent deadlocks that can occur due to needing to escalate locks on such tables. A thought is to "hide" this query inside a security definer function, so that the permission could be granted to a more ordinary user. That seems a bit thorny, requires more thought. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.slony.info/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
- Previous message: [Slony1-bugs] [Bug 302] New: Slony functions unnecessarily lock pg_catalog tables for update
- Next message: [Slony1-bugs] [Bug 303] New: Slony Watchdog failed starting up the child process
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Slony1-bugs mailing list