Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus
Date
Msg-id 1334420159.9019.38.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus  (Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
On lör, 2012-04-14 at 08:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@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.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thom Brown
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add new replication mode synchronous_commit = 'write'.
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus