| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: V3 protocol vs INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING |
| Date: | 2006-08-11 16:50:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1155315025.21451.306.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 1. Define it as a feature not a bug. People do occasionally ask for
> "UPDATE foo ... LIMIT 1" after all. But this is a pretty klugy way of
> getting that, and the arguments that say allowing LIMIT on updating
> queries would be a bad idea haven't lost their force.
Being one of those who was asking for an UPDATE/DELETE with limit, I
would be very glad if this would be implemented... it would be a big
help for batch-processing data in OLTP environment (no long running
queries allowed). I still don't see why would nondeterminism be
generally a bad thing when there are applications which don't care about
that...
Cheers,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-11 17:09:21 | Re: V3 protocol vs INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING |
| Previous Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-08-11 16:48:18 | Re: V3 protocol vs INSERT/UPDATE RETURNING |