On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 11 May 2014 11:18, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> I don't know. I'd find UPDATE/DELETE ORDER BY something rather
>> Perhaps if an index exists to provide an ordering that makes it clear
>> what this means, then yes.
> The $64 question is whether we'd accept an implementation that fails
> if the target table has children (ie, is partitioned).
I'd say "no". Partitioning is important, and we need to make it more
seamless and better-integrated, not add new warts.
> That seems
> to me to not be up to the project's usual quality expectations, but
> maybe if there's enough demand for a partial solution we should do so.
I like this feature, but if I were searching for places where it makes
sense to loosen our project's usual quality expectations, this isn't
where I'd start.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: