Re: LIMIT NULL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LIMIT NULL
Date: 2009-02-02 20:43:42
Message-ID: 1502.1233607422@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's worked the way it does now since 7.1, and no one has complained;
>> in fact we've gotten bug reports when it was broken by the int8-limit
>> patch. So there are people depending on the behavior.

> Yeah, it's very useful. Here's a patch for the docs about it.

Seems to me that the SELECT reference page is a more appropriate place
for this type of detail. I've applied a patch there.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2009-02-02 20:52:50 Re: LIMIT NULL
Previous Message Oleg Bartunov 2009-02-02 20:37:03 Re: chinese parser for text search !