From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | srb(at)cuci(dot)nl (Stephen R(dot) van den Berg) |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Implementation of LIMIT on DELETE and UPDATE statements (rel to 7.2.1) |
Date: | 2002-09-21 23:35:03 |
Message-ID: | 20020921193503.7bf3ed2c.alvherre@atentus.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
En Sun, 22 Sep 2002 01:19:24 +0200
srb(at)cuci(dot)nl (Stephen R. van den Berg) escribió:
> Incidentally, using a SELECT without an ORDER BY but with a LIMIT is
> documented to give unpredictable results, yet users are expected cope with
> this fact, but are expected to have problems with a similar fact in
> an UPDATE or DELETE statement?
> Somehow the argumentation is not conclusive.
Yes, I was thinking the same thing when I answered earlier.
I am in the same position as you here (meaning someone who has
contributed some patch), so my opinion doesn't have a lot of weigth; but
as I already said, the feature has some value with the ORDER BY added,
and the LIMIT/OFFSET thing expanded to allow expressions (this last part
is in TODO).
Clearly an ORDER BY clause without LIMIT doesn't make any sense; but
it does with it.
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]atentus.com>)
"Para tener mas hay que desear menos"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2002-09-22 02:26:17 | Re: DROP COLUMN misbehaviour with multiple inheritance |
Previous Message | Stephen R. van den Berg | 2002-09-21 23:19:24 | Re: Implementation of LIMIT on DELETE and UPDATE statements (rel to 7.2.1) |