| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 12:23:40 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYL_GC=1OSpPFW=Qz_LVe6_y0x2qQ=GSgEx2NpFKYhPNw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
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?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-04-14 16:15:59 | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-04-14 07:27:58 | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-04-14 12:29:55 | Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-04-14 12:22:56 | Re: column name of pg_stat_replication.backend_start |