On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 22:23 -0800, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 22:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I guess that on purely philosophical grounds, it's not an unreasonable
> > behavior. For example, "LIMIT n" means "output at most n tuples",
> > not "output exactly n tuples". So when it outputs no tuples in the face
> > of a negative limit, it's meeting its spec.
> If "LIMIT n" means "emit at most n tuples", then a query that produces 0
> rows with n < 0 is arguably violating its spec, since it has produced
> more tuples than the LIMIT specified (0 > n). Interpreted this way, no
> result set can be consistent with a negative limit, so I'd vote for
> throwing an error.
I even found an existing, unused error message called
so here's a patch.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2007-12-14 14:45:09|
|Subject: Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2007-12-14 14:11:49|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Is postgres.gif missing in cvs?|