| From: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Zhenghua Lyu <zlv(at)pivotal(dot)io>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Questions of 'for update' |
| Date: | 2019-06-10 07:22:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAGz5QCL6U+3k=1iDcQcEjb-j960h0GRVcBJM-_f27WH7EJU3-Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 12:42 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 3:50 PM Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:31 AM Zhenghua Lyu <zlv(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
> >> 2. Is the case above a bug or a feature?
> >>
> > IMHO, it looks like an expected behaviour of a correct transaction
> management implementation.
>
> This is documented behavior; see the Caution for The Locking Clause on
> the SELECT reference page:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/sql-select.html
>
>
> Great. It also suggests a workaround.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2019-06-10 07:28:37 | Re: Why to index a "Recently DEAD" tuple when creating index |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2019-06-10 07:12:30 | Re: Questions of 'for update' |