Re: UPDATE/DELETE XXX WHERE CURRENT OF cursor_name

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Cc: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, Golden Liu <goldenliu(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: UPDATE/DELETE XXX WHERE CURRENT OF cursor_name
Date: 2006-07-24 15:51:40
Message-ID: 11321.1153756300@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
> How could there be a concurrent update of the _same_ row, when
> I do "select * from bar *for update*".

AFAICT the spec doesn't require one to have written FOR UPDATE
in order to use WHERE CURRENT OF. (In effect, they expect FOR UPDATE
to be the default, which is certainly not a change we're going to
want to make to DECLARE CURSOR.) If we did make that restriction
then we could probably skip the EvalPlanQual mess.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-07-24 15:55:29 Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-07-24 15:43:28 Re: UPDATE/DELETE XXX WHERE CURRENT OF cursor_name