| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Daniel Loureiro <daniel(at)termasa(dot)com(dot)br>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Csaba Nagy <ncslists(at)googlemail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack) |
| Date: | 2010-12-03 00:12:50 |
| Message-ID: | 201012030012.oB30CoS25908@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2010-11-30 at 14:20 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > I agree, that argument is completely misconceived. If the DBA is
> > paying enough attention to use LIMIT, s/he should be paying enough
> > attention not to do damage in the first place. If that were the only
> > argument in its favor I'd be completely against the feature.
>
> I don't have any use for DELETE with LIMIT, but UPDATE with LIMIT could
> be very useful if you are doing full-table updates and you don't have
> enough space so you do it in chunks.
So should this now be a TODO item? Text?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-03 00:13:46 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-03 00:12:16 | Re: Spread checkpoint sync |