Re: [HACKERS] Odd behaviour of SELECT ... ORDER BY ... FOR UPDATE

2015-12-21 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Hi Marko, > > On 2015/07/02 16:27, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: >> 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 SEL

Re: [HACKERS] Odd behaviour of SELECT ... ORDER BY ... FOR UPDATE

2015-07-02 Thread Etsuro Fujita
Hi Marko, On 2015/07/02 16:27, Marko Tiikkaja wrote: > 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

Re: [HACKERS] Odd behaviour of SELECT ... ORDER BY ... FOR UPDATE

2015-07-02 Thread Marko Tiikkaja
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

[HACKERS] Odd behaviour of SELECT ... ORDER BY ... FOR UPDATE

2015-07-02 Thread Etsuro Fujita
Hi, 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 exam