| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rukh Meski <rukh(dot)meski(at)yahoo(dot)ca>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.5: UPDATE/DELETE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT .. |
| Date: | 2014-05-11 08:33:10 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJD_LmS-8utCGJBE2sSh_XCUtyX09ta4VWkDWKZaSewpA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11 May 2014 07:37, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane has explained these problems in a very clear manner
> in his below mail and shared his opinion about this feature as
> well.
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/26819.1291133045@sss.pgh.pa.us
I don't have Tom's wonderfully articulate way of saying things, so
I'll say it my way:
If you want to do this, you already can already write a query that has
the same effect. But supporting the syntax directly to execute a
statement with an undefinable outcome is a pretty bad idea, and worse
than that, there's a ton of useful things that we *do* want that would
be a much higher priority for work than this. If you support Postgres,
prioritise, please.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-11 09:16:45 | Re: pg_class.relpages/allvisible probably shouldn't be a int4 |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-05-11 08:22:53 | Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API |