Commit9cf12df

committed

Clarify that ORDER BY/FOR UPDATE can't malfunction at higher iso levels.

Kevin Grittner

1 parent6c21105 commit9cf12dfCopy full SHA for 9cf12df

File tree

-1

lines changed

-1

lines changed

Lines changed: 9 additions & 1 deletion

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
`@@ -1281,7 +1281,8 @@ ROLLBACK TO s;`
`1281`	`1281`
`1282`	`1282`	`<caution>`
`1283`	`1283`	`<para>`
`1284`		`- It is possible for a <command>SELECT</> command using <literal>ORDER`
	`1284`	`+ It is possible for a <command>SELECT</> command running at the <literal>READ`
	`1285`	`+ COMMITTED</literal> transaction isolation level and using <literal>ORDER`
`1285`	`1286`	`BY</literal> and <literal>FOR UPDATE/SHARE</literal> to return rows out of`
`1286`	`1287`	`order. This is because <literal>ORDER BY</> is applied first.`
`1287`	`1288`	`The command sorts the result, but might then block trying to obtain a lock`
`@@ -1302,6 +1303,13 @@ SELECT * FROM (SELECT * FROM mytable FOR UPDATE) ss ORDER BY column1;`
`1302`	`1303`	`only if concurrent updates of the ordering columns are expected and a`
`1303`	`1304`	`strictly sorted result is required.`
`1304`	`1305`	`</para>`
	`1306`	`+`
	`1307`	`+ <para>`
	`1308`	`+ At the <literal>REPEATABLE READ</literal> or <literal>SERIALIZABLE</literal>`
	`1309`	`+ transaction isolation level this would cause a serialization failure (with`
	`1310`	`+ a <literal>SQLSTATE</literal> of <literal>'40001'</literal>), so there is`
	`1311`	`+ no possibility of receiving rows out of order under these isolation levels.`
	`1312`	`+ </para>`
`1305`	`1313`	`</caution>`
`1306`	`1314`	`</refsect2>`
`1307`	`1315`

Comments

(0)