From: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) |
---|---|
To: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] SELECT ... LIMIT (trial implementation) |
Date: | 1998-10-16 18:36:08 |
Message-ID: | m0zUEjR-000EBQC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I said:
> It is a clean implementation of LIMIT (regression tested) and
> the open items on it are to enable parameters and handle it
> in SQL functions and SPI stuff (currently ignored in both).
> Optimizing the executor would require the other sort node
> stuff discussion first to come to a conclusion. For now it
> skips final result rows - but that's already one step forward
> since it reduces the rows sent to the frontend to exactly
> that what LIMIT requested.
Parameters - done
SPI stuff - done
SQL functions - no LIMIT (cannot work)
For SPI calls, a LIMIT clause in the query will take
precedence over the tcount argument to
SPI_exec()/SPI_execp(). So SPI functions stay 100% backward
compatible, but LIMIT is also available for C and PL
functions.
Unfortunately code is frozen. And since this is feature, it
is past 6.4. Or can we get it out of the refrigerator for a
moment, Marc?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ean R . Schuessler | 1998-10-16 18:40:48 | PostgreSQL grows to enormous size. |
Previous Message | Tom Ivar Helbekkmo | 1998-10-16 17:51:45 | Re: [HACKERS] Did the inet type get backed out? |