| From: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Svenne Krap <svenne(at)krap(dot)dk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: LIMIT NULL |
| Date: | 2009-02-04 19:20:06 |
| Message-ID: | 3073cc9b0902041120j6536b33dt643728d0ee047fdd@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Still, the queries-limit.html page includes this statement: "OFFSET 0
> is the same as omitting the OFFSET clause." I don't see that there
> would be anything bad or confusing about changing it to read this way:
> "OFFSET 0 is the same as omitting the OFFSET clause, and LIMIT NULL is
> the same as omitting the LIMIT clause." In fact, it seems nicely
> symmetric.
>
good point...
can we just apply this one and let this discussion off?
or maybe remove the OFFSET part and point to the SQL COMMAND
references page? (doesn't seem appropiate to me to reject the LIMIT
comment and let the other one in there while they are almost the same)
--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-02-04 19:29:29 | Re: Polymorphic types vs. domains |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-02-04 18:58:34 | Re: add_path optimization |