| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rukh Meski <rukh(dot)meski(at)yahoo(dot)ca>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.5: UPDATE/DELETE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT .. |
| Date: | 2014-07-09 15:15:20 |
| Message-ID: | 53BD5C88.5000209@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/11/14 6:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The $64 question is whether we'd accept an implementation that fails
> if the target table has children (ie, is partitioned). That seems
> to me to not be up to the project's usual quality expectations, but
> maybe if there's enough demand for a partial solution we should do so.
I think that partial support is better than no support unless there are
concerns about forwards compatibility. I don't see such concerns having
been expressed for this feature.
.marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-07-09 15:28:11 | Re: better atomics - v0.5 |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-07-09 15:12:37 | Re: 9.5: UPDATE/DELETE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT .. |