mirror of
https://github.com/postgres/postgres.git
synced 2025-07-11 10:01:57 +03:00
When FOR UPDATE/SHARE is used with LIMIT, put the LockRows plan node
underneath the Limit node, not atop it. This fixes the old problem that such a query might unexpectedly return fewer rows than the LIMIT says, due to LockRows discarding updated rows. There is a related problem that LockRows might destroy the sort ordering produced by earlier steps; but fixing that by pushing LockRows below Sort would create serious performance problems that are unjustified in many real-world applications, as well as potential deadlock problems from locking many more rows than expected. Instead, keep the present semantics of applying FOR UPDATE after ORDER BY within a single query level; but allow the user to specify the other way by writing FOR UPDATE in a sub-select. To make that work, track whether FOR UPDATE appeared explicitly in sub-selects or got pushed down from the parent, and don't flatten a sub-select that contained an explicit FOR UPDATE.
This commit is contained in:
@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
|
||||
*
|
||||
*
|
||||
* IDENTIFICATION
|
||||
* $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/nodes/readfuncs.c,v 1.226 2009/10/26 02:26:32 tgl Exp $
|
||||
* $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/nodes/readfuncs.c,v 1.227 2009/10/28 14:55:38 tgl Exp $
|
||||
*
|
||||
* NOTES
|
||||
* Path and Plan nodes do not have any readfuncs support, because we
|
||||
@ -203,6 +203,7 @@ _readQuery(void)
|
||||
READ_BOOL_FIELD(hasSubLinks);
|
||||
READ_BOOL_FIELD(hasDistinctOn);
|
||||
READ_BOOL_FIELD(hasRecursive);
|
||||
READ_BOOL_FIELD(hasForUpdate);
|
||||
READ_NODE_FIELD(cteList);
|
||||
READ_NODE_FIELD(rtable);
|
||||
READ_NODE_FIELD(jointree);
|
||||
@ -295,6 +296,7 @@ _readRowMarkClause(void)
|
||||
READ_UINT_FIELD(rti);
|
||||
READ_BOOL_FIELD(forUpdate);
|
||||
READ_BOOL_FIELD(noWait);
|
||||
READ_BOOL_FIELD(pushedDown);
|
||||
|
||||
READ_DONE();
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user