Rob Nikander <rob.nikan...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Jun 10, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> […] but it'd be better to adjust the query to ensure a deterministic >> update order.
> Thank you for the answer. Since `update` has no `order by` clause, I’m > guessing there’s no way to do this with just the `update` statement, and that > I should use `select … order by … for update’ for this. Yeah, that's one easy answer. You can probably force it with a sub-select in the UPDATE, as well, but it will take more thought. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general