Richard Huxton wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> The problem is that the new tuple version is checked only against the
>> condition in the update rule, id=OLD.id, but not the condition in the
>> original update-claus, dt='a'.
>>
>> Yeah, that's confusing :(.
>
> Bit more than just normal rule confusion I'd say. Try the following two
> statements in parallel (assuming you've just run the previous):
>
> UPDATE test SET dt='c';
> UPDATE test SET dt='x' FROM test t2 WHERE test.id=t2.id AND t2.dt='b';
>
> This isn't a problem with the view mechanism - it's a problem with
> re-checking clauses involving subqueries or joins I'd guess.
>
> I'm trying to decide if it's unexpected or just plain wrong, and I think
> I'd have to argue wrong.
Or perhaps I'd not argue that :-/
This is really about MVCC in read committed mode, and the "just right
for simpler cases":
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/transaction-iso.html#XACT-READ-COMMITTED
Clearly there needs to be a change to the sentence: "Because of the
above rule, it is possible for an updating command to see an
inconsistent snapshot: it can see the effects of concurrent updating
commands that affected the same rows it is trying to update"
Not true if there's a subquery/join involved.
-- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
