Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit

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...

just my 2 cents...

On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Tom Lane wrote:

> Jochem van Dieten <jochemd(at)oli(dot)tudelft(dot)nl> writes:
> > I would say the relevant behaviour is neither the one that MySQL
> > historically uses nor the one that PostgreSQL historically uses, but the
> > one that is specified in the relevant standards.
>
> There aren't any: SQL92 and SQL99 have no such feature. (Although I
> notice that they list LIMIT as a word likely to become reserved in
> future versions.)
>
> AFAIK we copied the idea and the syntax from MySQL ... but we got the
> order of the parameters wrong.
>
> IMHO "LIMIT n OFFSET n" is far more readable than "LIMIT m,n" anyway.
> (Quick: which number is first in the comma version? By what reasoning
> could you deduce that if you'd forgotten?) So I think we should
> deprecate and eventually eliminate the comma version, if we're not
> going to conform to the de facto standard for it.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>