From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rukh Meski <rukh(dot)meski(at)yahoo(dot)ca>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.5: UPDATE/DELETE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT .. |
Date: | 2014-05-11 09:18:42 |
Message-ID: | 20140511091842.GA11518@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-05-11 10:33:10 +0200, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 11 May 2014 07:37, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Tom Lane has explained these problems in a very clear manner
> > in his below mail and shared his opinion about this feature as
> > well.
> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/26819.1291133045@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> I don't have Tom's wonderfully articulate way of saying things, so
> I'll say it my way:
>
> If you want to do this, you already can already write a query that has
> the same effect. But supporting the syntax directly to execute a
> statement with an undefinable outcome is a pretty bad idea, and worse
> than that, there's a ton of useful things that we *do* want that would
> be a much higher priority for work than this. If you support Postgres,
> prioritise, please.
I don't know. I'd find UPDATE/DELETE ORDER BY something rather
useful. It's required to avoid deadlocks in many scenarios and it's not
that obvious how to write the queries in a correct manner.
LIMIT would be a nice bonus for queues, especially if we can get SKIP
LOCKED.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rukh Meski | 2014-05-11 10:06:19 | Re: 9.5: UPDATE/DELETE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT .. |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-11 09:16:45 | Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4 |