| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Lee McKeeman <lmckeeman(at)opushealthcare(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Date: | 2009-01-12 17:52:00 |
| Message-ID: | 1231782720.3898.25.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 08:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> That code has been working like this for eight or ten years now and this
> is the first complaint, so taking away functionality on the grounds that
> someone might happen to update the ordering column doesn't seem like the
> answer to me.
>
If they are using FOR UPDATE, they clearly expect concurrent updates. If
they're using ORDER BY, they clearly expect the results to be in order.
So who is the target user of this functionality we're trying to protect?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-01-12 18:02:23 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-01-12 17:47:19 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Mayer | 2009-01-12 18:01:26 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-01-12 17:47:19 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |