From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 19:11:53 |
Message-ID: | 1231787513.27085.30.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-12 19:21:08 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-01-12 19:01:49 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-01-12 19:17:26 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-01-12 19:05:57 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |