On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> It strikes me that it likely wouldn't be any >>> worse than, oh, say, flipping the default value of >>> standard_conforming_strings, >> >> Really? It's taking away functionality and not supplying any substitute >> (or at least you did not propose any). In fact, you didn't even suggest >> exactly how you propose to not break joined UPDATE/DELETE. > > Oh, hmm, interesting. I had been thinking that you were talking about > a case where *user code* was relying on the semantics of the TID, > which has always struck me as an implementation detail that users > probably shouldn't get too attached to.
small aside: tid usage is the best method for kludging a delete/limit: delete from del where ctid = any (array(select ctid from del limit 10)); (via http://postgres.cz/wiki/PostgreSQL_SQL_Tricks) merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
