On 2014-05-11 10:33:10 +0200, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 11 May 2014 07:37, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Tom Lane has explained these problems in a very clear manner > > in his below mail and shared his opinion about this feature as > > well. > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/26819.1291133...@sss.pgh.pa.us > > I don't have Tom's wonderfully articulate way of saying things, so > I'll say it my way: > > If you want to do this, you already can already write a query that has > the same effect. But supporting the syntax directly to execute a > statement with an undefinable outcome is a pretty bad idea, and worse > than that, there's a ton of useful things that we *do* want that would > be a much higher priority for work than this. If you support Postgres, > prioritise, please.
I don't know. I'd find UPDATE/DELETE ORDER BY something rather useful. It's required to avoid deadlocks in many scenarios and it's not that obvious how to write the queries in a correct manner. LIMIT would be a nice bonus for queues, especially if we can get SKIP LOCKED. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
