From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
Date: | 2000-10-26 23:49:52 |
Message-ID: | 22987.972604192@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> Re-implement LIMIT/OFFSET as a plan node type, instead of a hack in
>> ExecutorRun. This allows LIMIT to work in a view. Also, LIMIT in a
>> cursor declaration will behave in a reasonable fashion,
> Does "reasonable" mean that LIMIT is treated as optimizer's
> hint but doesn't restrict total FETCH counts ?
No, it means that a LIMIT in a cursor means what it says: the cursor
will show that many rows and no more. FETCH lets you move around in
the cursor, but not override the limit. I decided that the other
behavior was just too darn weird... if you want to argue about that,
let's take it up on pghackers not committers.
Yes, the optimizer does pay attention to the limit.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-27 00:09:33 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-26 23:45:30 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-27 00:09:33 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
Previous Message | Larry Rosenman | 2000-10-26 23:49:38 | Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR |