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

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

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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 12:23:40
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYL_GC=1OSpPFW=Qz_LVe6_y0x2qQ=GSgEx2NpFKYhPNw@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
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?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-04-14 12:29:55
Subject: Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-04-14 12:22:56
Subject: Re: column name of pg_stat_replication.backend_start

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2012-04-14 16:15:59
Subject: Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2012-04-14 07:27:58
Subject: Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus

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