| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Flancer <huongch(at)bigfoot(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit |
| Date: | 2001-10-18 06:21:08 |
| Message-ID: | 3BCE74D4.9A97F0BD@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >
> > > > Break the SQL code that has been implemented for prior versions??
> > > > Bummer ;((.
> > >
> > > Yes, but we don't follow the MySQL behavior, which we copied when we
> > > added LIMIT. Seems we should agree with their implementation.
> >
> > Isn't it much worse to not follow PostgreSQL behaviour than to not follow
> > MySQL behaviour?
>
> Well, it was on the TODO list and people complained while porting their
> MySQL applications. We clearly made a mistake in the initial
> implementation.
>
> The question is do we fix it or continue with a different
> implementation. Because we have the separate LIMIT and OFFSET we can
> fix it while giving people a solution that will work for all versions.
> If we don't fix it, all MySQL queries that are ported will be broken.
But it seems absurd to trouble existent PG users instead.
regrads,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michał 'Samuel' Modestowicz | 2001-10-18 06:48:07 | TEXT field's length limit in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Brett W. McCoy | 2001-10-18 04:03:44 | Re: SQL equivallent to "\ds" in psql |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jochem van Dieten | 2001-10-18 07:31:58 | Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit |
| Previous Message | Matthew Hagerty | 2001-10-18 04:19:05 | Re: PQstatus() detect change in connection... |