Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus
От
Pavel Stehule
Тема
Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus
Дата
Msg-id
CAFj8pRA7O2TWeYt5dfpLQAFieLB57qD4=_dL+c4mYfDbsBCt-Q@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>
Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
2012/4/14 Robert Haas : > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: >>> Yeah. I think it would be a good idea for UPDATE and DELETE to expose >>> a LIMIT option, but I can't really see the virtue in making that >>> functionality available only through SPI. >> >> I don't agree - LIMIT after UPDATE or DELETE has no sense. Clean >> solution should be based on using updateable CTE. > > It has a lot of sense. Without it, it's very difficult to do logical > replication on a table with no primary key. > > (Whether or not people should create such tables in the first place > is, of course, beside the point.) I am not against to functionality - I am against just to syntax DELETE FROM tab LIMIT x because is it ambiguous what means: DELETE FROM tab RETURNING * LIMIT x Regards Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления