Add support for select_for_update for implicit transactions

[David]

Currently the ​select_for_update method is only allowed inside explicit transactions which have been started using transaction.atomic.

However any DML SQL statements can create an "implicit transaction" in which it may be useful to get control on row-level locks.

What I would like to achieve is a way to perform the following statement (inspired by ​this SO answer):

UPDATE my_table
SET my_col = 1
WHERE id IN (
    SELECT id
    FROM my_table
    WHERE ...
    FOR UPDATE
);

As of now it is not possible to perform this kind of query:

MyModel.objects.filter(pk__in=MyModel.objects.filter(...).select_for_update()).update(my_col=...)
#   raises TransactionManagementError: select_for_update cannot be used outside of a transaction.

The same can be accomplished by forcing the transaction

with transaction.atomic():
    MyModel.objects.filter(pk__in=MyModel.objects.filter(...).select_for_update()).update(my_col=...)
#  works!

It would be useful to improve locks management in bulk-operations.

If it is too difficult to add this kind of support with the ORM it could, at least, be documented as a tip in the docs.

[jaffar Khan]

I think select_for_update() is working as it has to be because using select_for_update() in implicit transactions will not make sense as no atomic boundary is defined, django will not know when to lock the rows and when to release the lock. It is defined in docs ​https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/6.0/ref/models/querysets/#select-for-update as

Returns a queryset that will lock rows until the end of the transaction

Even if you redefine the select_for_update() it will lock the rows and immidiatley release it before any updates so technically it will behave as implicit transactions.