Tom Lane wrote:
>
>Also, for Mario and Barry: does this test case look anything like what
>your real applications do? In particular, do you ever do a SELECT FOR
>UPDATE in a transaction that commits some changes, but does not update
>or delete the locked-for-update row? If not, it's possible there are
>yet more bugs lurking in this.
>
This certainly seems plausible for my application.
--Barry
