| From: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) |
|---|---|
| To: | maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us (Bruce Momjian) |
| Cc: | jwieck(at)debis(dot)com, Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] What about LIMIT in SELECT ? |
| Date: | 1998-10-20 17:12:19 |
| Message-ID: | m0zVfKV-000EBPC@orion.SAPserv.Hamburg.dsh.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
>
> I agree. Another good thing is that the LIMIT thing will not require a
> dump/reload, so it is a good candidate for a minor release.
That's wrong, sorry.
The limit thing as I implemented it adds 2 new variables to
the Query structure. Rewrite rules are stored as querytrees
and in the existing pg_rewrite entries that would be missing.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 1998-10-20 17:22:40 | Re: [HACKERS] What about LIMIT in SELECT ? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-10-20 17:02:58 | Re: [HACKERS] What about LIMIT in SELECT ? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-10-20 17:22:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Bugfix for rule system |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-10-20 17:02:58 | Re: [HACKERS] What about LIMIT in SELECT ? |