| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Lee McKeeman <lmckeeman(at)opushealthcare(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Date: | 2009-01-12 17:41:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1231782061.3898.13.camel@jdavis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 15:26 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 1) We document bluntly that ORDER BY + FOR UPDATE can return unordered
> results, or
>
> 2) We prohibit ORDER BY + FOR UPDATE, like we do with a number of other
> clauses. (There would be no loss of functionality, because you can run
> the query a second time in the transaction with ORDER BY.)
>
I like Lee's idea of a WARNING plus a documentation note -- seems like a
reasonable compromise. Maybe we can add the prohibition later if we
still don't have a fix for it.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-01-12 17:47:19 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| Previous Message | Lee McKeeman | 2009-01-12 15:54:50 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2009-01-12 17:44:03 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-01-12 17:38:07 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |