On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
>
> FWIW, I'm not excited about that. You can get well-defined beha
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Given the lack of complaints since 9.0, maybe we should not fix this
>>> but just redefine the new behavior as being correct? But it seems
>>> mighty inconsistent t
2012/4/15 Boszormenyi Zoltan :
> 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
>>> wrote:
>
> It has a lot of sense. Without it, it's very difficult to do logical
>
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 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 pe
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
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 - LIMIT after UPDATE or DELETE has no
>
> 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
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:39 AM, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/spi-spi-execute.html
>>
>>> ===
>>> SPI_execute("INSERT INTO foo SELECT * FROM bar", false, 5);
>>> will allow at m
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/spi-spi-execute.html
>
>> ===
>> SPI_execute("INSERT INTO foo SELECT * FROM bar", false, 5);
>> will allow at most 5 rows to be inserted into the table.
>> ===
>
>> This seem
umi.tan...@gmail.com writes:
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/spi-spi-execute.html
> ===
> SPI_execute("INSERT INTO foo SELECT * FROM bar", false, 5);
> will allow at most 5 rows to be inserted into the table.
> ===
> This seems not true unless I'm missing something.
Hmm ... that did
14 matches
Mail list logo
