Re: [HACKERS] What about LIMIT in SELECT ?

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: hannu(at)trust(dot)ee (Hannu Krosing)
Cc: jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What about LIMIT in SELECT ?
Date: 1998-10-15 16:42:00
Message-ID: 199810151642.MAA17626@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I would even go far enough to call it a bugfix, as it does not really
> introduce any new functionality only fixes some existing functionality
> so that much bigger databases can be actually used.
>
> I would compare it in this sense to finding the places where
> username/password get truncated below their actual values in pg_passwd
> ;)

We just can't test is on the wide variation of people's queries, though
passing the regression test is a good indication it is OK.

However, we are very close to release. Yes, I know it is a pain to
wait, but we are not even done discussion all the options yet, and I
still have the cnfify fix to look at.

I am sure we will have post 6.4 releases, just like we have everyone
runing 6.3.2 rather than 6.3. There will be other now-undiscovered
fixes in post 6.4 cleanup releases, and we will hopefully have a _full_
solution to the problem at that point.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message D'Arcy J.M. Cain 1998-10-15 16:58:37 Did the inet type get backed out?
Previous Message Jan Wieck 1998-10-15 16:36:26 Re: [HACKERS] Re: order by and index path