| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Crooke <dcrooke(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Elias Ghanem <e(dot)ghanem(at)acteos(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Dead lock |
| Date: | 2010-06-14 20:44:26 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTik4XC9oxIQFX4ei_Xyez4lPb00NENkbukhYr0DH@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Dave Crooke <dcrooke(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If you're doing straight SQL bulk updates, then as someone suggested, you could use an ORDER BY on a subquery, but I don't know if that is a guarantee, if you're not actually displaying the results then the DB may be technically allowed to optimize it out from underneath you. The only way to be sure is a cursor / procedure.
'order by' should be safe if you use SELECT...FOR UPDATE. update
doesn't have an order by clause. Using cursor/procedure vs a query
is not the material point; you have to make sure locks are acquired in
a regular way.
update foo set x=x where id in (select * from bar order by x) does
look dangerous.
I think:
update foo set x=x where id in (select * from bar order by x for update)
should be ok. I don't usually do it that way.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-14 20:46:11 | Re: Re: Command Prompt 8.4.4 PRMs compiled with debug/assert enabled |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-06-14 20:16:39 | Re: query hangs |