Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus
Date: 2012-04-14 16:15:59
Message-ID: 1334420159.9019.38.camel@vanquo.pezone.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
On lör, 2012-04-14 at 08:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> 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
> 
> What's ambiguous about that?

I suppose one could wonder whether the LIMIT applies to the deleting or
just the returning.


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2012-04-14 17:01:24
Subject: Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus
Previous:From: Thom BrownDate: 2012-04-14 15:13:39
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add new replication mode synchronous_commit = 'write'.

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2012-04-14 17:01:24
Subject: Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-04-14 12:23:40
Subject: Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group