| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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 17:01:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRDM4Q92esE8_BadrrSUc=mRveZL-hdmRDr8CSY7YwnnNw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
2012/4/14 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
> 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.
>
yes, exactly
Regards
Pavel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-04-14 21:48:31 | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-04-14 16:15:59 | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-04-14 18:34:36 | Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-04-14 16:15:59 | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |