| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Lee McKeeman <lmckeeman(at)opushealthcare(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Status of issue 4593 |
| Date: | 2009-01-06 00:03:14 |
| Message-ID: | 28503.1231200194@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2009-01-05 at 15:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The only way to avoid this would be to lock before the sort, which could
>> have the effect of locking more rows than are returned (if you also use
>> LIMIT);
> How would that work in the case of an index scan sort?
It wouldn't, which is one of the problems with doing it any other way...
I don't think there's a bug here, at least not in the sense that it
isn't Operating As Designed. But it does seem like we could do with
some more/better documentation about exactly how FOR UPDATE works.
The sequence of operations is evidently a bit more user-visible than
I'd realized.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jasen Betts | 2009-01-06 09:56:34 | BUG #4602: child processes inherit database socket |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-01-05 22:58:18 | Re: Status of issue 4593 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-06 00:16:47 | Re: Segfault on CVS HEAD |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-01-05 23:41:22 | Re: Segfault on CVS HEAD |