And that seems definitely wrong. Declaring c1 in the above example as FOR UPDATE or FOR SHARE does not change the result. I think this discussion is mixing up the concept of cursor sensitivity with transaction isolation.
Thoughts?
This came up on Discord in the context of pl/pgsql last month - never really came to a conclusion.
"
open curs FOR SELECT * FROM Res FOR UPDATE; LOOP FETCH curs into record; EXIT WHEN NOT FOUND; INSERT INTO Res SELECT Type.Name FROM Type WHERE Type.SupClass = record.Name; END LOOP;
"
The posted question was: "this doesn't go over rows added during the loop despite the FOR UPDATE"
The OP was doing a course based on Oracle and was confused regarding our behavior. The documentation failed to help me provide a useful response, so I'd agree there is something here that needs reworking if not outright fixing.
