From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: David Christensen <david@endpoint.com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #16676: SELECT ... FETCH FIRST ROW WITH TIES FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED locks rows it doesn't return
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:16:56 -0400
Message-ID: <604509.1603203416@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201020134114.GA11045@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20201020134114.GA11045@alvherre.pgsql>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2020-Oct-19, David Christensen wrote:
>> Maybe splitting LockRows into two nodes, one for locking and one for
>> emitting unlocked nodes then interleaving Limit in between? (Or only
>> doing something along these lines for this admittedly narrow use case.)
> I was having a similar idea, but the main reason I don't think it's a
> good fix is that we can't backpatch such a change to pg13.
Um, why not? I don't have a position yet on whether this is a good way
to fix it; but if we did do it, AFAICS the only thing we'd have to be
careful of in v13 is not renumbering existing NodeTag values.
If your concern is just that EXPLAIN plans will look different, the same
could be said of David's other proposal.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, david@endpoint.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #16676: SELECT ... FETCH FIRST ROW WITH TIES FOR UPDATE SKIP LOCKED locks rows it doesn't return
In-Reply-To: <604509.1603203416@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox