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

Re: DELETE ... USING

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <eulerto(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br>,PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: DELETE ... USING
Date: 2005-04-05 03:30:58
Message-ID: 6459.1112671858@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Euler Taveira de Oliveira wrote:
>> euler=# delete from t1 where t1.a = t3.x;
>> DELETE 1
>> euler=# 
>> 
>> I think we need at least a NOTICE here. Of course it could be extended
>> to UPDATE too.

> I can see an argument for having a NOTICE here. On the other hand, 
> add_missing_from will default to false in 8.1, ...

... but when it is TRUE, there should be a notice, same as there is in
SELECT.  UPDATE should produce such a notice too, IMHO.  Probably we
omitted the message originally because there was no way to avoid it
in a DELETE, but now there will be.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2005-04-05 03:32:47
Subject: Re: Notes on lock table spilling
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-04-05 02:49:19
Subject: Re: DELETE ... USING

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-04-05 04:11:53
Subject: Re: DELETE ... USING
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2005-04-05 02:49:19
Subject: Re: DELETE ... USING

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