| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Negative LIMIT and OFFSET? |
| Date: | 2007-12-17 05:36:01 |
| Message-ID: | 5830.1197869761@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> This behavior suggests that they can't even deal with LIMIT/OFFSET
>> values that aren't simple integer literals ...
> I suppose when they added these features I think they didn't have subqueries,
> so there wasn't really much useful that could be done with arbitrary
> expressions here. Being able to do "LIMIT 1+1" doesn't actually add anything.
Sure. I think our first implementation of LIMIT was similarly
constrained. It's just amusing that they haven't moved past that,
despite having had the feature first ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2007-12-17 07:28:33 | Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE printing logical and hardware I/O per-node |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-12-17 05:24:42 | Re: Negative LIMIT and OFFSET? |