| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres general mailing list <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: allow LIMIT in UPDATE and DELETE |
| Date: | 2006-05-19 14:31:24 |
| Message-ID: | 29038.1148049084@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> writes:
> I DO NOT CARE about which rows are deleted.
You can't possibly think that that holds true in general.
> The fact that it is
> nondeterministic can be very clearly specified in the documentation if
> you think it is such a bad thing, but nondeterministic is perfectly
> fine sometimes. There are lots of nondeterminisms in the data base
> world, starting with the ordering of selects if you don't use order
> by, then why don't we force everybody using order by ? Why don't you
> force to use order by on a select with limit ? Why there it is enough
> to say it in the docs that it WILL BE NON_DETERMINISTIC ?
I can tolerate nondeterminism in SELECT because it doesn't change the
data. If you get it wrong you can always do it over. UPDATE/DELETE
need to have higher standards though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Csaba Nagy | 2006-05-19 14:42:20 | Re: allow LIMIT in UPDATE and DELETE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-19 14:23:03 | Re: SQL & Binary Data Questions |