| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | David Christensen <david(at)endpoint(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #16676: SELECT ... FETCH FIRST ROW WITH TIES FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED locks rows it doesn't return |
| Date: | 2020-10-20 14:16:56 |
| Message-ID: | 604509.1603203416@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On 2020-Oct-19, David Christensen wrote:
>> Maybe splitting LockRows into two nodes, one for locking and one for
>> emitting unlocked nodes then interleaving Limit in between? (Or only
>> doing something along these lines for this admittedly narrow use case.)
> I was having a similar idea, but the main reason I don't think it's a
> good fix is that we can't backpatch such a change to pg13.
Um, why not? I don't have a position yet on whether this is a good way
to fix it; but if we did do it, AFAICS the only thing we'd have to be
careful of in v13 is not renumbering existing NodeTag values.
If your concern is just that EXPLAIN plans will look different, the same
could be said of David's other proposal.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Christensen | 2020-10-20 14:23:06 | Re: BUG #16676: SELECT ... FETCH FIRST ROW WITH TIES FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED locks rows it doesn't return |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-10-20 13:41:14 | Re: BUG #16676: SELECT ... FETCH FIRST ROW WITH TIES FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED locks rows it doesn't return |