Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 January 2009 02:03:14 Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't think there's a bug here, at least not in the sense that it
>> isn't Operating As Designed. But it does seem like we could do with
>> some more/better documentation about exactly how FOR UPDATE works.
>> The sequence of operations is evidently a bit more user-visible than
>> I'd realized.
>
> Well, if the effect of ORDER BY + FOR UPDATE is "it might in fact not be
> ordered", then it's pretty broken IMO. It would be pretty silly by analogy
> for example, if the effect of GROUP BY + FOR UPDATE were "depending on
> concurrent events, it may or may not be fully grouped".
I can see two ways forward:
1) We document bluntly that ORDER BY + FOR UPDATE can return unordered
results, or
2) We prohibit ORDER BY + FOR UPDATE, like we do with a number of other
clauses. (There would be no loss of functionality, because you can run
the query a second time in the transaction with ORDER BY.)
Comments?
