Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593

On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 13:35 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think the behavior Lee is expecting is only implementable with a
> full-table write lock, which is exactly what FOR UPDATE is designed
> to avoid. There are certain properties you don't get with a partial
> lock, and in the end I think we can't do much except document them.
> We have LOCK TABLE for those who need the other behavior.
>

Lee said specifically that he's not using LIMIT, and there's already a
pretty visible warning in the docs for using LIMIT with FOR UPDATE.
Also, using LIMIT + FOR UPDATE has a dangerous-looking quality to it (at
least to me) that would cause me to do a little more investigation
before relying on its behavior.

I'm not pushing for FOR UPDATE + ORDER BY to be blocked outright, but I
think it's strange enough that it should be considered some kind of
defect worse than the cases involving LIMIT that you mention.

Regards,
Jeff Davis