Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.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 -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs