Re: To Postgres Devs : Wouldn't changing the select limit
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jochem van Dieten <jochemd@oli.tudelft.nl>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Date: 2001-10-18T18:18:34Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Jochem van Dieten <jochemd@oli.tudelft.nl> writes: > I would say the relevant behaviour is neither the one that MySQL > historically uses nor the one that PostgreSQL historically uses, but the > one that is specified in the relevant standards. There aren't any: SQL92 and SQL99 have no such feature. (Although I notice that they list LIMIT as a word likely to become reserved in future versions.) AFAIK we copied the idea and the syntax from MySQL ... but we got the order of the parameters wrong. IMHO "LIMIT n OFFSET n" is far more readable than "LIMIT m,n" anyway. (Quick: which number is first in the comma version? By what reasoning could you deduce that if you'd forgotten?) So I think we should deprecate and eventually eliminate the comma version, if we're not going to conform to the de facto standard for it. regards, tom lane