Mark Shewmaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 19:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Mark Shewmaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> If a "FOR UPDATE executes before LIMIT" rule stopped the function
>>> from ever locking a row, it's still curious why didn't it stop the
>>> direct command fro
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 19:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Shewmaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If a "FOR UPDATE executes before LIMIT" rule stopped the function
> > from ever locking a row, it's still curious why didn't it stop the
> > direct command from ever locking a row as well.
>
>
Mark Shewmaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If a "FOR UPDATE executes before LIMIT" rule stopped the function
> from ever locking a row, it's still curious why didn't it stop the
> direct command from ever locking a row as well.
I think it would. Did you try the test the other way ar
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 14:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Shewmaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In other words: Is this a bug or a user misunderstanding:
>
> You've got the function doing
>
> > LOOP
> > select * into myrow from mytable limit 1 for update;
> > if found then exit;
>
Mark Shewmaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In other words: Is this a bug or a user misunderstanding:
You've got the function doing
> LOOP
> select * into myrow from mytable limit 1 for update;
> if found then exit;
> end if;
> END LOOP;
which means it will loop infin
