Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit
От | Jochem van Dieten |
---|---|
Тема | Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3BD00DE3.2010507@oli.tudelft.nl обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit
Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit |
Список | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>I agree that LIMIT n OFFSET n is by far the most readable format, and is >>therefore the desirable format. But I am not sure about deprecating and >>eliminating the other syntax. Above all it should be avoided that it is >>now deprecated but is included in the next SQL standard and has to be >>added again. > > I am confused. While LIMIT and OFFSET may are potential SQL standard > reserved words, I don't see how LIMIT #,# would ever be a standard > specification. Do you see this somewhere I am missing. Again, LIMIT > #,# is the only syntax we are removing. If you are confident that LIMIT #,# would never be an official SQL standard who am I to second guess that ;) I don't see that possibility anywhere either, but I just wanted to make sure. The possibility that it might become an official standard is the only objection I had against deprecating and eventual elimination of that syntax. LIMIT # OFFSET # has my vote. Jochem
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: