On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote:
> I agree. If we are to support UPDATE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT, it should work > with inheritance. So the path forward is (using Marko's phrasing upthread): > > 1) We put the LIMIT inside ModifyTable like this patch does. This > doesn't prevent us from doing ORDER BY in the future, but helps numerous > people who today have to > 2) Someone rewrites how UPDATE works based on Tom's suggestion here: > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1598.1399826...@sss.pgh.pa.us, > which allows us to support ORDER BY on all tables (or perhaps maybe not > FDWs, I don't know how those work). The LIMIT functionality in this > patch is unaffected. > > 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? I've wanted LIMIT even without ORDER BY many times, so I'd vote yes. > 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. > On that I can't give any useful feedback. Cheers, Jeff
