| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Svenne Krap <svenne(at)krap(dot)dk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LIMIT NULL |
| Date: | 2009-02-07 20:11:18 |
| Message-ID: | 200902072011.n17KBIj19241@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Still, the queries-limit.html page includes this statement: "OFFSET 0
> > is the same as omitting the OFFSET clause." I don't see that there
> > would be anything bad or confusing about changing it to read this way:
> > "OFFSET 0 is the same as omitting the OFFSET clause, and LIMIT NULL is
> > the same as omitting the LIMIT clause." In fact, it seems nicely
> > symmetric.
> >
>
> good point...
>
> can we just apply this one and let this discussion off?
> or maybe remove the OFFSET part and point to the SQL COMMAND
> references page? (doesn't seem appropiate to me to reject the LIMIT
> comment and let the other one in there while they are almost the same)
Patch attached and applied.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| /rtmp/diff | text/x-diff | 1.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-02-07 21:05:14 | Re: add_path optimization |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-02-07 20:06:00 | Re: <note> on hash indexes |