On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 15:26 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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.)
>
I like Lee's idea of a WARNING plus a documentation note -- seems like a
reasonable compromise. Maybe we can add the prohibition later if we
still don't have a fix for it.
Regards,Jeff Davis