On 7/2/15 9:15 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > While working on the foreign-join-pushdown issue, I noticed that in READ > COMMITTED isolation level it's possible that the result of SELECT ... > ORDER BY ... FOR UPDATE is not sorted correctly due to concurrent > updates that replaced the sort key columns with new values as shown in > the below example. That seems odd to me. So, I'd like to propose > raising an error rather than returning a possibly-incorrect result for > cases where the sorted tuples to be locked were modified by concurrent > updates.
I don't like the idea of READ COMMITTED suddenly throwing errors due to concurrency problems. Using FOR UPDATE correctly is really tricky, and this is just one example. And a documented one, at that, too. .m -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
