2012/4/15 Boszormenyi Zoltan <z...@cybertec.at>: > 2012-04-14 18:15 keltezéssel, Peter Eisentraut írta: > >> On lör, 2012-04-14 at 08:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Pavel Stehule<pavel.steh...@gmail.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? >> >> I suppose one could wonder whether the LIMIT applies to the deleting or >> just the returning. > > > Ambigous only in this order. LIMIT x RETURNING * wouldn't be.
but theoretically you can has two LIMIT clauses in one SQL statements DELETE FROM tab LIMIT n RETURNING * LIMIT m without updatable CTE it is probably only one solution, but because we have UCTE, then we don't need this construct. Regards Pavel > > -- > ---------------------------------- > Zoltán Böszörményi > Cybertec Schönig& Schönig GmbH > Gröhrmühlgasse 26 > A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria > Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de > http://www.postgresql.at/ > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
