Re: Questions of 'for update'

Thanks so much. I understand now. Best Regards, Zhenghua Lyu On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 3:22 PM Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 12:42 PM Etsuro Fujita > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 3:50 PM Kuntal Ghosh >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:31 AM Zhenghua Lyu

Re: Questions of 'for update'

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 12:42 PM Etsuro Fujita wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 3:50 PM Kuntal Ghosh > wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:31 AM Zhenghua Lyu wrote: > >> 2. Is the case above a bug or a feature? > >> > > IMHO, it looks like an expected behaviour of a correct transactio

Re: Questions of 'for update'

Hi, On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 3:50 PM Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:31 AM Zhenghua Lyu wrote: >> 2. Is the case above a bug or a feature? >> > IMHO, it looks like an expected behaviour of a correct transaction management > implementation. This is documented behavior; see the C

Re: Questions of 'for update'

Hello, On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:31 AM Zhenghua Lyu wrote: > > 1. why after emitting `lockrows` plannode, the result can no longer be > assumed sorted? > The plan corresponding to your select query is as following: QUERY PLAN --- Limit -> LockRows