On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On lör, 2012-04-14 at 08:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Pavel Stehule
>> wrote:
>> >> It has a lot of sense. Without it, it's very difficult to do logical
>> >> replication on a table with no primary k
2012/4/14 Peter Eisentraut :
> On lör, 2012-04-14 at 08:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Pavel Stehule
>> 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 no
On lör, 2012-04-14 at 08:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Pavel Stehule
> 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
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Pavel Stehule 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
2012/4/14 Robert Haas :
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Pavel Stehule
> 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 - LI
