2012/4/14 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> 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. > > 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 Regards Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
