Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 24899.1003429114@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit (Jochem van Dieten <jochemd@oli.tudelft.nl>) |
| Ответы |
Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
Jochem van Dieten <jochemd@oli.tudelft.nl> writes:
> I would say the relevant behaviour is neither the one that MySQL
> historically uses nor the one that PostgreSQL historically uses, but the
> one that is specified in the relevant standards.
There aren't any: SQL92 and SQL99 have no such feature. (Although I
notice that they list LIMIT as a word likely to become reserved in
future versions.)
AFAIK we copied the idea and the syntax from MySQL ... but we got the
order of the parameters wrong.
IMHO "LIMIT n OFFSET n" is far more readable than "LIMIT m,n" anyway.
(Quick: which number is first in the comma version? By what reasoning
could you deduce that if you'd forgotten?) So I think we should
deprecate and eventually eliminate the comma version, if we're not
going to conform to the de facto standard for it.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: