Index: doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.117
diff -c -c -r1.117 select.sgml
*** doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml	12 Jan 2009 14:06:20 -0000	1.117
--- doc/src/sgml/ref/select.sgml	22 Jan 2009 22:50:20 -0000
***************
*** 1162,1177 ****
    <caution>
     <para>
      It is possible for a <command>SELECT</> command using both
!     <literal>LIMIT</literal> and  <literal>FOR UPDATE/SHARE</literal>
      clauses to return fewer rows than specified by <literal>LIMIT</literal>.
      This is because <literal>LIMIT</> is applied first.  The command
      selects the specified number of rows,
!     but might then block trying to obtain lock on one or more of them.
      Once the <literal>SELECT</> unblocks, the row might have been deleted
      or updated so that it does not meet the query <literal>WHERE</> condition
      anymore, in which case it will not be returned.
     </para>
    </caution>
    </refsect2>
  
    <refsect2 id="SQL-TABLE">
--- 1162,1192 ----
    <caution>
     <para>
      It is possible for a <command>SELECT</> command using both
!     <literal>LIMIT</literal> and <literal>FOR UPDATE/SHARE</literal>
      clauses to return fewer rows than specified by <literal>LIMIT</literal>.
      This is because <literal>LIMIT</> is applied first.  The command
      selects the specified number of rows,
!     but might then block trying to obtain a lock on one or more of them.
      Once the <literal>SELECT</> unblocks, the row might have been deleted
      or updated so that it does not meet the query <literal>WHERE</> condition
      anymore, in which case it will not be returned.
     </para>
    </caution>
+ 
+   <caution>
+    <para>
+     Similarly, it is possible for a <command>SELECT</> command
+     using <literal>ORDER BY</literal> and <literal>FOR
+     UPDATE/SHARE</literal> to return rows out of order.  This is
+     because <literal>ORDER BY</> is applied first.  The command
+     orders the result, but might then block trying to obtain a lock
+     on one or more of the rows.  Once the <literal>SELECT</>
+     unblocks, one of the ordered columns might have been modified
+     and be returned out of order.  A workaround is to perform
+     <command>SELECT ... FOR UPDATE/SHARE</> and then <command>SELECT
+     ... ORDER BY</>.
+    </para>
+   </caution>
    </refsect2>
  
    <refsect2 id="SQL-TABLE">