On 2014-09-10 04:25, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> (2014/09/09 18:57), Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> What's not clear to me is whether it make sense to do 1) without 2) ? Is
>> UPDATE .. LIMIT without support for an ORDER BY useful enough? And if we
>> apply this patch now, how much of it needs to be rewritten after 2) ? If
>> the answers are "yes" and "not much", then we should review this patch
>> now, and put 2) on the TODO list. Otherwise 2) should do done first.
>
> My answers are "yes" but "completely rewritten".
Any particular reason for you to say that? Because an UPDATE might have
a RETURNING clause, all the updated tuples have to go through the
ModifyTable node one at a time. I don't see why we couldn't LIMIT there
after implementing #2.
.marko
