From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Csaba Nagy <ncslists(at)googlemail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Loureiro <loureirorg(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack) |
Date: | 2010-12-01 18:07:11 |
Message-ID: | 4CF68ECF.5020508@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> We need a convincing use case for it. So far the only one that's seemed
> at all convincing to me is the one about deleting in batches. But that
> might be enough.
Queueing. If logless tables are in 9.1, then using PostgreSQL as the
backend for a queue becomes a sensible thing to do. And what is a
"pop" off a queue other than:
DELETE FROM my_queue ORDER BY age LIMIT 1;
For this reason, I think accepting a good patch for DELETE would be
worthwhile even if we don't have UPDATE yet.
--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dmitriy Igrishin | 2010-12-01 18:08:49 | Re: DELETE with LIMIT (or my first hack) |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-12-01 18:05:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2 |