Re: 9.5: UPDATE/DELETE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT ..
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 9.5: UPDATE/DELETE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT .. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20140511091842.GA11518@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 9.5: UPDATE/DELETE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT .. (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: 9.5: UPDATE/DELETE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT ..
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-05-11 10:33:10 +0200, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 11 May 2014 07:37, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.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. I don't know. I'd find UPDATE/DELETE ORDER BY something rather useful. It's required to avoid deadlocks in many scenarios and it's not that obvious how to write the queries in a correct manner. LIMIT would be a nice bonus for queues, especially if we can get SKIP LOCKED. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: