| From: | Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE and LIMIT 1 behave oddly |
| Date: | 2004-10-16 17:35:16 |
| Message-ID: | 1097948116.12716.32.camel@linda |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 17:09, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I propose that I add this sentence to the Docs:
>
> --------------
> Please not that, since LIMIT is applied before FOR UPDATE, rows which
^^^
I assume this should be "note". It took me a little time to parse your
plaintive appeal correctly. :-)
> disappear from the target set while waiting for a lock may result in less
> than LIMIT # of rows being returned. This can result in unintuitive
> behavior, so FOR UPDATE and LIMIT should only be combined after significant
> testing.
> ---------------
--
Oliver Elphick olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA
========================================
"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only,
deceiving your own selves." James 1:22
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2004-10-17 02:45:10 | Stale entries in pg_stat_activity |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-10-15 16:09:47 | Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE and LIMIT 1 behave oddly |