Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus
| От | Robert Haas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CA+Tgmob0yP0Y4FQG8Oi0KU0b8-24ZABL+0OAJr4YR2CgZDEasQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: