Re: [PATCH] "limit" support for postgres/sdb for dlr's

Please check out bug 87 with more information about this (clue: it isn't
a problem with Postgres!). More info below.

On 15/05/04, Alexander Malysh ([email protected]) wrote:
> reading your patch I'm wondering, why posgresql supports 'limit 1' for 
> update/select sql statements and not for delete? is it really the case?!
> sorry I'm too lazy to google yet ;)

> > In current sdb driver for dlr's, when using postgres the queries
> > are totally ignoring the "limit" argument (that will be still
> > necessary until we don't have a way to disambiguate between
> > messages, such as was suggested by Nicholas Rahn some time ago
> > for example). The following short patch allows sdb queries
> > aimed at postgres to correctly limit the results.

n 25/09/03, Rory Campbell-Lange ([email protected]) wrote:
> I have registered bug 87 after verifying that the LIMIT clause does
> not meet the SQL92 spec.
> 
> However this error points to the larger question of unique row ids in
> the database, and by implication the unique IDs of all messages
> handled by Kannel as Stipe mentions below.
> 
> Naturally database work against (properly indexed) unique ids will be
> far quicker than the existing system.

-- 
Rory Campbell-Lange 
<[email protected]>
<www.campbell-lange.net>