| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: LIMIT NULL |
| Date: | 2009-02-02 18:09:28 |
| Message-ID: | 4986E278.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> Is it intentional that `LIMIT NULL` means the same as `LIMIT ALL`?
> Uh, I figure LIMIT NULL should return no rows.
Why? Since the normal meaning of NULL is "value unknown or does not
apply" it would seem to be most reasonable, if it's going to be
accepted in a LIMIT clause, to have it mean "the LIMIT does not
apply".
Plus, if it has been accepted with the "no limit" semantics, wouldn't
it require a really good reason to break backwards compatibility?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2009-02-02 18:16:59 | Re: new buildfarm client code feature release |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2009-02-02 18:04:11 | Re: LIMIT NULL |