On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, PostgreSQL Bugs List wrote:
> > Actually, it shows that functions have odd behavior when locking is
> > involved (your statement would potentially be true if you could replicate
> > this without the functions). IIRC, there are issues currently with which
> > rows you see in such functions unless you end up using FOR UPDATE on the
> > selects or something of that sort.
> If the first select is a "FOR UPDATE" nothing change. For sure the last select in
Right, I changed both to see if that made it "work" for me and it did. I
didn't bother to try the only after one.
> that function doesn't see the same row if you perform that same select after
> the function execution, and for sure doesn't see the same row that the update
> statement touch.
I believe it sees the one that was valid in the snapshot as of the
beginning of the function.
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: César Arnold||Date: 2004-08-26 02:14:35|
|Subject: Re: replacing a function called "isnull" reports an error |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-08-26 01:49:20|
|Subject: Re: Inconsistent pg_ctl behaviour: start vs. runservice|