Tom Lane wrote:
> "Daniel Caune" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It seems that, in certain condition, row (199,84) is shadowing row
> > (3702,85);
>
> This would be the expected behavior if row (199,84) were an updated
> version of row (3702,85), but you couldn't see it yet in your current
> trans
"Daniel Caune" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems that, in certain condition, row (199,84) is shadowing row
> (3702,85);
This would be the expected behavior if row (199,84) were an updated
version of row (3702,85), but you couldn't see it yet in your current
transaction snapshot. A plain SELE
> De : Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Daniel Caune" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I did the following test, removing all the where-clause from the SELECT
> statement. Every statement completes immediately, i.e. it doesn't block.
>
> I think you left out some critical information, like
"Daniel Caune" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I did the following test, removing all the where-clause from the SELECT
> statement. Every statement completes immediately, i.e. it doesn't block.
I think you left out some critical information, like who else was doing
what to the table.
What it look
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : mardi, novembre 27, 2007 23:46
> À : Daniel Caune
> Cc : pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
> Objet : Re: [SQL] Strang behaviour SELECT ... LIMIT n FOR UPDATE
>
> "Daniel Caune" <[
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Daniel Caune" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm facing a strange behaviour with a statement SELECT ... LIMIT n FOR
> > UPDATE in PostgreSQL 8.1. The number of rows returned is actually (n -
> > 1). I'm trying to find whether this is an identified issue with
> > PostgreSQL 8.1
"Daniel Caune" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm facing a strange behaviour with a statement SELECT ... LIMIT n FOR
> UPDATE in PostgreSQL 8.1. The number of rows returned is actually (n -
> 1). I'm trying to find whether this is an identified issue with
> PostgreSQL 8.1 that might have been fixe
Hi,
I'm facing a strange behaviour with a statement SELECT ... LIMIT n FOR
UPDATE in PostgreSQL 8.1. The number of rows returned is actually (n -
1). I'm trying to find whether this is an identified issue with
PostgreSQL 8.1 that might have been fixed in a later version such as
8.2; I don't have
