Now that we've got a hopefully-non-broken implementation of SELECT FOR
UPDATE locking as a plan node, we can finally contemplate fixing two
misbehaviors that are called out on the SELECT reference page:
It is possible for a SELECT command using both LIMIT and FOR
UPDATE/SHARE clauses to return fewer rows than specified by LIMIT. This
is because LIMIT is applied first. The command selects the specified
number of rows, but might then block trying to obtain a lock on one or
more of them. Once the SELECT unblocks, the row might have been deleted
or updated so that it does not meet the query WHERE condition anymore,
in which case it will not be returned.
Similarly, it is possible for a SELECT command using ORDER BY and FOR
UPDATE/SHARE to return rows out of order. This is because ORDER BY is
applied first. The command orders the result, but might then block
trying to obtain a lock on one or more of the rows. Once the SELECT
unblocks, one of the ordered columns might have been modified and be
returned out of order. A workaround is to perform SELECT ... FOR
UPDATE/SHARE and then SELECT ... ORDER BY.
All that we have to do to fix the first one is to put the LockRows node
below the Limit node instead of above it. The solution for the second
one is to also put LockRows underneath the Sort node, and to regard its
output as unsorted so that a Sort node will certainly be generated.
(This in turn implies that we should prefer the cheapest-total plan
for the rest of the query.)
Does anyone have any objections to this? I can't see that it will break
any applications that work today, but maybe I'm missing something.
regards, tom lane
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2009-10-26 02:35:59|
|Subject: Re: pg_standby doesnt't work|
|Previous:||From: Itagaki Takahiro||Date: 2009-10-26 02:11:23|
|Subject: Re: Statement Level Deferred Triggers|