1
0
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:
Tom Lane
2009-10-28 14:55:47 +00:00
parent 44956c52c5
commit 46e3a16b05
13 changed files with 225 additions and 126 deletions

View File

@ -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();
}