| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Negative LIMIT and OFFSET? |
| Date: | 2008-03-10 03:40:30 |
| Message-ID: | 28193.1205120430@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 22:23 -0800, Neil Conway wrote:
>> 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
> ERRCODE_INVALID_LIMIT_VALUE
> so here's a patch.
Applied, but using just ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE rather than
guessing what the SQL committee intended with that SQLSTATE.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kris Jurka | 2008-03-10 05:42:01 | Need -fwrapv or -fno-strict-overflow for gcc-4.3 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-10 03:03:37 | Re: Include Lists for Text Search |