Re: For update clause

Florence Cousin wrote:
> Le mardi 15 juin 2010 22:04:06, Bruce Momjian a ?crit :
> >
> > Wow, that is a confusing double-negative sentence. I have updated the
> > text to be:
> >
> > In addition, rows that satisfied the query conditions as of the
> > query snapshot will be locked, although they will not be returned
> > if they were updated after the snapshot and no longer satisfy the
> > query conditions.
> >
> > What it is saying is that SELECT FOR UPDATE will lock all rows that
> > match the SELECT query using the current snapshot, but the returned rows
> > might be different because the rows were changed after the snapshot was
> > taken, and a SELECT FOR UPDATE will return the rows as UPDATE will see
> > them, which might not match the SELECT snapshot. Yeah, it is confusing.
>
> Thank you for the patch and the explanation. It is clear for me now (the rows
> returned are those that would be returned by an UPDATE, that is pretty
> logical).
>
> But I think most of the users will still not understand this, because they do
> not know what a snapshot is, and do not really know how locking works.
>
> And I managed to understand thank to the explanation, but I think I could not
> understand with the new version of the explanation alone (the fact that rows
> returned are the rows as UPDATE will see them)
>
> Maybe it would be clearer with a longer explanation, or a link to an
> explanation?

Well, the entire area is very complicated, but do we want to add even
more text there? I am not sure.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ None of us is going to be here forever. +