From: | "Mitch Vincent" <mvincent(at)cablespeed(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit |
Date: | 2001-10-18 23:35:39 |
Message-ID: | 01a401c1582d$b3267860$e05c5dd8@mitch |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
LIMIT m OFFSET m *is* there now..
There is a LIMIT m,n syntax too I guess, though it appears that it's
backwards from MySQL..
I don't see much point in having two different ways of doing the same
thing unless you wanted to maintain compatibility with another RDBMS - but
that doesn't appear to be the case here (isn't that reversed from the MySQL
implementation?).. However, removing it now is going to break people's SQL..
I didn't know you could LIMIT m,n until today so I wouldn't have a clue as
to how many people actually use that syntax. Perhaps the idea of tossing a
notice up that that syntax is going away in the next release would be a
better idea than just yanking it out right away - then we can see how many
people complain :-)
-Mitch
> As a user of both MySQL and PostgreSQL I can say that I would *love* it if
> you went with "LIMIT n OFFSET m" instead of "LIMIT m,n". *every* time I
> use the offset feature I have to look it up in the manual or some other
> code snippet that has it (and where it's clear).
>
> Even it broke some script I'd written it's pretty easy to find and fix
> it...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2001-10-18 23:49:15 | Re: VACUUM vs VACUUM ANALYZE |
Previous Message | Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= | 2001-10-18 23:07:06 | Re: Accessing PostgreSQL through Apache and PHP4 on Linux |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2001-10-18 23:49:15 | Re: VACUUM vs VACUUM ANALYZE |
Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2001-10-18 22:00:29 | Re: Create or replace function doesn't work so well |