| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Lee McKeeman <lmckeeman(at)opushealthcare(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Date: | 2009-01-12 18:02:23 |
| Message-ID: | 1231783343.3898.32.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 12:47 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> If the only case where ORDER BY + FOR UPDATE are not strictly
> compatible is when the columns being updated are the same as the
> columns of the sort, a blanket prohibition against using the two
> together seems like it prohibits an awful lot of useful things someone
> might want to do.
As long as the people using it are aware that they can't update the
ordering columns, it may make sense to leave that functionality in
there.
Can you expand on "an awful lot of useful things"? It seems like an edge
case to me, and the restriction it imposes is quite awkward to meet.
"OK, nobody ever update these fields in this table.".
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-12 18:35:28 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-01-12 17:52:00 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-12 18:04:16 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |
| Previous Message | Ron Mayer | 2009-01-12 18:01:26 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |