Re: Implementation of LIMIT on DELETE and UPDATE statements
| От | Bruce Momjian | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Implementation of LIMIT on DELETE and UPDATE statements | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 200209230312.g8N3ChC05510@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст | 
| Ответ на | Re: Implementation of LIMIT on DELETE and UPDATE statements (rel to 7.2.1) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) | 
| Ответы | Re: Implementation of LIMIT on DELETE and UPDATE statements | 
| Список | pgsql-patches | 
Tom Lane wrote: > > srb@cuci.nl (Stephen R. van den Berg) escribi�: > >> Incidentally, using a SELECT without an ORDER BY but with a LIMIT is > >> documented to give unpredictable results, yet users are expected cope with > >> this fact, but are expected to have problems with a similar fact in > >> an UPDATE or DELETE statement? > > Well, IMHO there's a big difference in documented unpredictable output > from a documented-unpredictable query, as opposed to > documented-unpredictable changes in the database state. There is not > a lot of use for the latter AFAICS. > > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@atentus.com> writes: > > as I already said, the feature has some value with the ORDER BY added, > > and the LIMIT/OFFSET thing expanded to allow expressions (this last part > > is in TODO). > > I'd have more confidence in the usefulness of the idea if it included > ORDER BY to make the LIMIT predictable. But before you run off and > implement that: does MySQL support such a thing? If not, the argument > of improving compatibility still doesn't hold any water... I see no reason to add stuff to UPDATE/DELETE when a subquery does the job just as well. It just seems like bloat. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: