From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
Date: | 2012-04-18 15:11:14 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobbJZSLb1mKj3QwRjk1LmtS5uZsmycf_oZMaF4FXSdFtA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> FWIW, I'm not excited about that. You can get well-defined behavior
> today from a SELECT/LIMIT drawing from a writable CTE (namely, that
> the UPDATE/DELETE runs to completion but you only see a subset of
> its RETURNING result). LIMIT directly on the UPDATE/DELETE would be
> ill-defined, unless perhaps you want to also invent a way of specifying
> the order in which rows get selected for update; but I don't want to
> go there.
In the use cases I'm thinking of, it doesn't matter which row you
decide to update or delete, only that you pick a single one.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-04-18 15:45:28 | Re: BUG #6204: Using plperl functions generate crash |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-04-18 15:02:25 | Re: BUG #6593: REASSIGN OWNED fails on extensions |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-04-18 15:29:35 | Re: Bug tracker tool we need |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-04-18 15:09:12 | Re: Aggressive memory consumption in {ts,array}_typanalyze |