"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> Are we sure that's a precise and complete description? I don't >> have a problem with putting a description just like that in the >> docs, but I'm not yet convinced it's right. > > Well, I thought it was when I typed it. You mentioned referencing > other columns in the updated rows; I'll test to see how that > behaves. Some quick testing seems to show that for the rows on which we were blocking, all columns reflect all updates from the concurrent transaction on which we were waiting, including columns used in the WHERE clause. I'm not sure exactly what other tests might be necessary. I'm having trouble coming up with anything which doesn't involve a join or subquery, but that could be a failure of imagination. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
