| 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: | 2000-10-27 03:05:15 |
| Message-ID: | 27738.972615915@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now that I look at it, the optimizer *already* prefers fast-start plans
>> for cursors. Is LIMIT ALL really necessary as an additional hint,
>> and if so how should it interact with the bias for cursors?
> If LIMIT doesn't restrict the total count of rows which cursors
> could return,there's no problem. Otherwise LIMIT ALL would be
> needed.
But is there a reason to treat LIMIT ALL differently from no LIMIT
clause at all?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-27 03:11:33 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-27 03:04:33 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-27 03:11:33 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-10-27 03:04:33 | Re: pgsql/src/backend/nodes (copyfuncs.c outfuncs.c print.c) |