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: