Re: 9.5: UPDATE/DELETE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT ..

From: Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Rukh Meski <rukh(dot)meski(at)yahoo(dot)ca>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 9.5: UPDATE/DELETE .. ORDER BY .. LIMIT ..
Date: 2014-07-10 09:17:43
Message-ID: 53BE5A37.5060009@joh.to
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 7/10/14 5:44 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> Basically, I wanted to say that apart from modified columns, we just
> need to pass table OID. If I am reading correctly, the same is
> mentioned by Heikki as well.

Yes, Heikki was talking about that approach. I was more interested in
the significantly more invasive approach Tom and Andres talked about
upthread, which your email was a response to.

.marko

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2014-07-10 10:13:34 Re: WAL replay bugs
Previous Message Shigeru Hanada 2014-07-10 09:12:15 Re: inherit support for foreign tables