Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> 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.
Can we detect it at run-time? If a recheck happens can we somehow know which
columns could be problematic to find updated and check that they're unchanged?
I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but I figured I would throw it out there in
case it gives anyone an idea.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!