Re: LIMIT for UPDATE and DELETE

On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> wrote:
> Ideally? Yeah, that would be great. But I don't see anyone volunteering to
> do that work, and I think holding back a useful feature (ORDER BY with
> UPDATE/DELETE) in hopes of getting someone to volunteer to do it is insane.
> Now, you're free to argue that ORDER BY with UPDATE/DELETE isn't that
> useful, of course, but I'm sure there are lots of people who agree with me.

I still agree with Tom. Arbitrary restrictions on which features can
be used in combination with each other piss off and alienate users.
We've put quite a bit of effort into making table inheritance not suck
(e.g. statistics on inheritance trees, Merge Append, etc.). Making it
suck more because you don't think it's as important as your feature
is, in my opinion, not cool.

This is not to say that I don't like the feature. I like it a lot.
But I like a product where you can be sure that if walking works and
chewing gum works you can also walk and chew gum at the same time even
more.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company