| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE and LIMIT 1 behave oddly |
| Date: | 2004-11-11 17:55:35 |
| Message-ID: | 200411110955.35094.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Bruce,
Ah, yes, which reminds me I need to generate that doc patch.
> I am wondering if a documentation warning about the use of FOR UPDATE
> and LIMIT is a good idea. If we can't be sure the LIMIT will return a
> guaranteed number of rows, should we just disallow that combination? I
> realize such a case is rare. Should we emit a warning when it happens?
Well, limit+for update can be useful under some circumstances, as long as you
understand its limitations. We found a workaround. So I'd oppose
disallowing it.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PostgreSQL Bugs List | 2004-11-11 19:55:30 | BUG #1313: problems with array syntax parsing in SQL statements |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-11-11 17:46:26 | Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE and LIMIT 1 behave oddly |