On Tuesday 06 January 2009 02:03:14 Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Well, if the effect of ORDER BY + FOR UPDATE is "it might in fact not be ordered", then it's pretty broken IMO. It would be pretty silly by analogy for example, if the effect of GROUP BY + FOR UPDATE were "depending on concurrent events, it may or may not be fully grouped". -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
