| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, 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>, 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 00:14:27 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=5EqJSm=7G+5Jctati76sNN=bX8tCD+JifQ+sM@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> 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?
Allow DELETE and UPDATE to be used with LIMIT and ORDER BY.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-12-03 00:17:07 | Re: Another proposal for table synonyms |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-12-03 00:13:46 | Re: WIP patch for parallel pg_dump |