On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:49:25PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > This has been discussed before, and rejected. Please see the archives. > > For SELECT, both LIMIT and OFFSET are only well-defined in the presence > of an ORDER BY clause. (One could argue that we should reject them when > no ORDER BY, but given that the database isn't getting changed as a side > effect, that's probably too anal-retentive. When the database *is* > going to be changed, however, I for one like well-defined results.) > > If this proposal included adding an ORDER BY to UPDATE/DELETE, then it > would at least be logically consistent. I have not seen the use-case > for it though. In any case you can usually get the equivalent result > with something like > > UPDATE foo SET ... > WHERE pkey IN (SELECT pkey FROM foo ORDER BY ... LIMIT ...);
BTW, this is a case where using ctid would make sense, though you can't: decibel=# update rrs set parent=parent+1 where ctid in (select ctid from rrs order by rrs_id limit 1); ERROR: could not identify an ordering operator for type tid HINT: Use an explicit ordering operator or modify the query. ERROR: could not identify an ordering operator for type tid HINT: Use an explicit ordering operator or modify the query. decibel=# -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
