Re: [HACKERS] SELECT ... LIMIT (trial implementation)

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) #

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?