On 2013-10-15 10:19:17 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, I don't know that any of us can claim to have a lock on what the > > syntax should look like. > > Sure. But it's not just syntax. We're talking about functional > differences too, since you're talking about mandating an update, which > is a not the same as an "update locked row only conditionally", or a > delete.
I think anything that only works by breaking visibility rules that way is a nonstarter. Doing that from the C level is one thing, exposing it this way seems a bad idea. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
