Re: Questions of 'for update'

From: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(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 07:12:30
Message-ID: CAPmGK17Xrj6iDuLTmBeKeMrSAbccvUr8doaaxnQoeXOWF4EkgQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kuntal Ghosh 2019-06-10 07:22:22 Re: Questions of 'for update'
Previous Message Kuntal Ghosh 2019-06-10 06:50:08 Re: Questions of 'for update'