| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
| Date: | 2012-04-14 04:21:22 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob0yP0Y4FQG8Oi0KU0b8-24ZABL+0OAJr4YR2CgZDEasQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Yeah. I think it would be a good idea for UPDATE and DELETE to expose
>> a LIMIT option, but I can't really see the virtue in making that
>> functionality available only through SPI.
>
> I don't agree - LIMIT after UPDATE or DELETE has no sense. Clean
> solution should be based on using updateable CTE.
It has a lot of sense. Without it, it's very difficult to do logical
replication on a table with no primary key.
(Whether or not people should create such tables in the first place
is, of course, beside the point.)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-04-14 07:27:58 | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-04-14 02:43:36 | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-04-14 06:09:20 | Re: docs: WITH queries and VALUES |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-04-14 04:20:26 | Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests |