From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Loureiro <loureirorg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Csaba Nagy <ncslists(at)googlemail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack) |
Date: | 2010-12-01 01:57:56 |
Message-ID: | 201012010157.oB11vuk07071@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Loureiro wrote:
> > 3. This doesn't work tremendously well for inheritance trees, where
> > ModifyTable acts as sort of an implicit Append node. You can't just
> > funnel all the tuples through one Sort or Limit node because they aren't
> > all the same rowtype. (Limit might perhaps not care, but Sort will.)
> > But you can't have a separate Sort/Limit for each table either, because
> > that would give the wrong behavior. Another problem with funneling all
> > the rows through one Sort/Limit is that ModifyTable did need to know
> > which table each row came from, so it can apply the modify to the right
> > table.
>
> So I guess that I have choose the wrong hack to start.
>
> Just for curiosity, why the result of "WHERE" filter (in
> SELECT/DELETE/UPDATE) is not put in memory, i.e. an array of ctid, like an
> buffer and then executed by SELECT/DELETE/UPDATE at once ?
Informix dbaccess would prompt a user for confirmation if it saw a
DELETE with no WHERE.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-12-01 02:03:26 | Re: Where are we on Standby Promotion? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-12-01 01:35:56 | Re: crash-safe visibility map, take three |