Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE and LIMIT 1 behave oddly

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE and LIMIT 1 behave oddly
Date: 2004-10-14 16:45:20
Message-ID: 200410140945.20826.josh@agliodbs.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Tom,

> The FOR UPDATE part executes after the LIMIT part.  Arguably this is a
> bad thing, but I'm concerned about the compatibility issues if we change
> it.

In that case, maybe I should do a doc patch warning people not to combine 
them?

Hmmm .... come to think of it, is there any easy way to query "give me the 
first row which is not locked"?    If I tie pg_locks to a query, will I get 
wierd effects?  Just musing ....

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Ivan Esteban Rivera UriaDate: 2004-10-14 22:11:37
Subject: finger print (minutias)
Previous:From: Federico Di GregorioDate: 2004-10-14 11:06:39
Subject: Re: BUG #1286: indices not used after a pg_restore

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group