Re: Status of issue 4593

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. =C2=A0But 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=20
ordered", then it's pretty broken IMO.  It would be pretty silly by analogy=
=20
for example, if the effect of GROUP BY + FOR UPDATE were "depending on=20
concurrent events, it may or may not be fully grouped".