On 2020/02/17 17:13, Amit Langote wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2020 at 4:59 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>> On 2020/02/14 10:28, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 8:39 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>>> We can verify that even "LOCK TABLE ONLY" command works
>>>> expectedly on the inherited tables by keeping those SQLs in the
>>>> regression test. So what about not removing these SQLs?
>>>
>>> Hmm, that test becomes meaningless with the behavior change we are
>>> introducing, but I am okay with not removing it.
>>
>> Only this regression test seems to verify LOCK TABLE ONLY command.
>> So if we remove this, I'm afraid that the test coverage would be reduced.
>
> Oh, I didn't notice that this is the only instance of testing LOCK
> TABLE ONLY. I would've expected that the test for:
>
> 1. checking that ONLY works correctly with LOCK TABLE, and
> 2. checking permission works correctly with ONLY
>
> are separate. Anyway, we can leave that as is.
>
>>> However, I added a test showing that locking child table directly doesn't work.
>>>
>>> Attached updated patch.
>>
>> Thanks for updating the patch!
>> Barring any objection, I will commit the patch.
>
> Thank you.
Pushed. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Advanced Platform Technology Group
Research and Development Headquarters