Please check out bug 87 with more information about this (clue: it isn't a problem with Postgres!). More info below.
On 15/05/04, Alexander Malysh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > reading your patch I'm wondering, why posgresql supports 'limit 1' for > update/select sql statements and not for delete? is it really the case?! > sorry I'm too lazy to google yet ;) > > In current sdb driver for dlr's, when using postgres the queries > > are totally ignoring the "limit" argument (that will be still > > necessary until we don't have a way to disambiguate between > > messages, such as was suggested by Nicholas Rahn some time ago > > for example). The following short patch allows sdb queries > > aimed at postgres to correctly limit the results. n 25/09/03, Rory Campbell-Lange ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I have registered bug 87 after verifying that the LIMIT clause does > not meet the SQL92 spec. > > However this error points to the larger question of unique row ids in > the database, and by implication the unique IDs of all messages > handled by Kannel as Stipe mentions below. > > Naturally database work against (properly indexed) unique ids will be > far quicker than the existing system. -- Rory Campbell-Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <www.campbell-lange.net>
