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 04:21:22
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob0yP0Y4FQG8Oi0KU0b8-24ZABL+0OAJr4YR2CgZDEasQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2012-04-14 06:09:20
Subject: Re: docs: WITH queries and VALUES
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-04-14 04:20:26
Subject: Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2012-04-14 07:27:58
Subject: Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2012-04-14 02:43:36
Subject: Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus

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