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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers