Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > This has been discussed before, and rejected. Please see the archives. For SELECT, both LIMIT and OFFSET are only well-defined in the presence of an ORDER BY clause. (One could argue that we should reject them when no ORDER BY, but given that the database isn't getting changed as a side effect, that's probably too anal-retentive. When the database *is* going to be changed, however, I for one like well-defined results.) If this proposal included adding an ORDER BY to UPDATE/DELETE, then it would at least be logically consistent. I have not seen the use-case for it though. In any case you can usually get the equivalent result with something like UPDATE foo SET ... WHERE pkey IN (SELECT pkey FROM foo ORDER BY ... LIMIT ...); regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
