On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 17:09, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I propose that I add this sentence to the Docs:
>
> --------------
> Please not that, since LIMIT is applied before FOR UPDATE, rows which
^^^
I assume this should be "note". It took me a little time to parse your
plaintive appeal correctly. :-)
> disappear from the target set while waiting for a lock may result in less
> than LIMIT # of rows being returned. This can result in unintuitive
> behavior, so FOR UPDATE and LIMIT should only be combined after significant
> testing.
> ---------------
--
Oliver Elphick olly@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/A54310EA 92C8 39E7 280E 3631 3F0E 1EC0 5664 7A2F A543 10EA
========================================
"But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only,
deceiving your own selves." James 1:22
