From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Richard Poole <richard(dot)poole(at)vi(dot)net>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: Use of the LIMIT clause ? |
Date: | 2001-03-20 21:19:20 |
Message-ID: | 200103202119.QAA17359@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-sql |
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Is this a TODO item? Seems we should match MySQL, seeing as we took the
> > feature syntax from them.
>
> Question is, will more people be inconvenienced if we change it than if
> we leave it alone? Seems like someone gets screwed either way ...
No question about it. One solution would be to disable this syntax for
one release and then fix it in the one after that. We already offer
LIMIT/OFFSET, which is what they should be using anyway. If we can't
remember, and no one reported the bug for many releases, odds are no one
was using that more limited form anyway.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jie Liang | 2001-03-21 00:03:17 | I cannot vacuum |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-20 21:16:16 | Re: Re: Use of the LIMIT clause ? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Cedar Cox | 2001-03-20 21:55:25 | Re: [HACKERS] triggered data change violation |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-20 21:16:16 | Re: Re: Use of the LIMIT clause ? |