Re: [BUGS] Status of issue 4593

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> 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.)

That code has been working like this for eight or ten years now and this
is the first complaint, so taking away functionality on the grounds that
someone might happen to update the ordering column doesn't seem like the
answer to me.
        regards, tom lane