Re: SELECT FOR UPDATE and LIMIT 1 behave oddly

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