| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "ORDER BY" clause prevents "UPDATE WHERE CURRENT OF" |
| Date: | 2008-11-15 00:09:54 |
| Message-ID: | 28188.1226707794@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> [ dept of second thoughts... ] Actually, given that he said FOR UPDATE,
> the plan should be propagating the tuple identity through to top level
> so that execMain can do its thing. So in principle we could probably
> get the information without widespread changes. This would fit
> reasonably well with the spec's requirements too --- any but trivial
> cursors are not deemed updatable unless you say FOR UPDATE. But it
> would mean two completely independent implementations within
> execCurrent.c...
Here's a draft patch (no docs, no regression test) for that. It doesn't
look as ugly as I expected. Comments? I'm hesitant to call this a bug
fix, and we are past feature freeze ...
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| unknown_filename | text/plain | 3.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2008-11-15 00:36:14 | Re: Windowing Function Patch Review -> Performance Comparison. |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2008-11-14 23:11:24 | Re: Column reordering in pg_dump |