On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Gaetano Mendola wrote: > Stephan Szabo wrote: > > > On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, PostgreSQL Bugs List wrote: > > > > Actually, it shows that functions have odd behavior when locking is > > involved (your statement would potentially be true if you could replicate > > this without the functions). IIRC, there are issues currently with which > > rows you see in such functions unless you end up using FOR UPDATE on the > > selects or something of that sort. > > If the first select is a "FOR UPDATE" nothing change. For sure the last select in
Right, I changed both to see if that made it "work" for me and it did. I didn't bother to try the only after one. > that function doesn't see the same row if you perform that same select after > the function execution, and for sure doesn't see the same row that the update > statement touch. I believe it sees the one that was valid in the snapshot as of the beginning of the function. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
