Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus

2012/4/14 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> 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.)

I am not against to functionality - I am against just to syntax DELETE
FROM tab LIMIT x

because is it ambiguous what means: DELETE FROM tab RETURNING * LIMIT x

Regards

Pavel

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