From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "PG Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "Lee McKeeman" <lmckeeman(at)opushealthcare(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
Date: | 2009-01-12 17:47:19 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070901120947wff5d628t74219be369d3230e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> I can see two ways forward:
>
>> 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.)
>
> That code has been working like this for eight or ten years now and this
> is the first complaint, so taking away functionality on the grounds that
> someone might happen to update the ordering column doesn't seem like the
> answer to me.
If the only case where ORDER BY + FOR UPDATE are not strictly
compatible is when the columns being updated are the same as the
columns of the sort, a blanket prohibition against using the two
together seems like it prohibits an awful lot of useful things someone
might want to do. Saying that you can run the query a second time as
a workaround so there's no loss of functionality is true only if you
accept the proposition that performance is not a requirement.
...Robert
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-01-12 17:52:00 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-01-12 17:41:01 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2009-01-12 17:52:00 | Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593 |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-01-12 17:45:48 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |