| From: | Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove ROW | ROWS from OFFSET and FETCH |
| Date: | 2010-03-26 00:24:54 |
| Message-ID: | bddc86151003251724t4a0d7b31l18a8f8058d448a2a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 26 March 2010 00:14, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:
> On 3/26/10 2:01 AM +0200, Thom Brown wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering if it might be worth making ROW/ROWS optional for
>> OFFSET and FETCH clauses? And can ONLY be optional too?
>
> AIUI the only time you'd want to use that syntax is when you want to write
> (theoretically) portable code, and making parts of the syntax optional is
> just breaking that portability. We already have a non-portable,
> non-standard syntax.
>
I understand. If that's the case I'll concede the point. :)
Thanks
Thom
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2010-03-26 02:06:07 | Re: Re: [GENERAL] question (or feature-request): over ( partition by ... order by LIMIT N) |
| Previous Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2010-03-26 00:14:20 | Re: Remove ROW | ROWS from OFFSET and FETCH |