| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
| Date: | 2012-04-14 16:15:59 |
| Message-ID: | 1334420159.9019.38.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On lör, 2012-04-14 at 08:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> 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
>
> What's ambiguous about that?
I suppose one could wonder whether the LIMIT applies to the deleting or
just the returning.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-04-14 17:01:24 | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-04-14 12:23:40 | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-04-14 17:01:24 | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2012-04-14 15:13:39 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add new replication mode synchronous_commit = 'write'. |