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 >>> useful. > >> 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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
