| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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 02:43:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRD3WUDKC-q-EhCnraNXF9pyD9qSxGKQ0O=UkoHiisXAVQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
>
> Yeah. I think it would be a good idea for UPDATE and DELETE to expose
> a LIMIT option, but I can't really see the virtue in making that
> functionality available only through SPI.
>
I don't agree - LIMIT after UPDATE or DELETE has no sense. Clean
solution should be based on using updateable CTE.
Regards
Pavel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-04-14 04:21:22 | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |
| Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2012-04-14 01:53:26 | Re: BUG #6587: Limit on a query is mis-documented |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-04-14 03:21:44 | Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-04-14 02:01:16 | Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests |