> Bruce Momjian writes:
>
> > It was on the TODO list, and I did exactly what was listed there. What
> > we have now is a discussion that the TODO item was wrong.
>
> I don't consider the items on the TODO list to be past the "adequately
> discussed" stage.
>
> To the topic at hand: I find re
> Not possible to accept both forms at present and issue a notice that
> LIMIT m,n is deprecated?
We accept both now and will for <=7.2. In 7.3, it will be only LIMIT #
OFFSET #.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 85
Not possible to accept both forms at present and issue a notice that
LIMIT m,n is deprecated?
If LIMIT m,n is found, internally re-write it to LIMIT m OFFSET n and
press on.
This should appease everyone and still allow the 'proper' form to be
implemented right now. There isn't just the quest
> But that's past. It's mighty close to beta -- is this fix a showstopper?
> The behavior currently is rather broken according to the results of the
> discussion on general. Do we really want a whole 'nother major version cycle
> to pass before this kludge is fixed? Six months to a year dow
> Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think Hiroshi's point is the same as mine: discussions of feature
> > changes need to happen on -hackers before being implemented.
>
> Well, IIRC there *was* some discussion about this some months back, and
> no one particularly objected to chan
On Monday 22 October 2001 10:32 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think Hiroshi's point is the same as mine: discussions of feature
> > changes need to happen on -hackers before being implemented.
[snip]
> > Subscriptions to other mailing lists should not be r
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The behavior currently is rather broken according to the results of the
> discussion on general. Do we really want a whole 'nother major version cycle
> to pass before this kludge is fixed? Six months to a year down the road?
> The longer this behavior i
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think Hiroshi's point is the same as mine: discussions of feature
> changes need to happen on -hackers before being implemented.
Well, IIRC there *was* some discussion about this some months back, and
no one particularly objected to changing it to b
OK, then why did Tom tell me to have the discusion on general? Don't we
ask the general users about user-visible feature removal? The is not an
implementation issue but a simple, "What do users want?" I agree it
would be good on hacker too, but how do we have a discussion on both?
> ...
> > A
> > I don't think that enough votes are needed to reverse
> > the change. You broke the discussion first rule.
Are you subscribed to general? We had a big discussion there and there
was almost universal agreement that the LIMIT #,# syntax is too
error-prone, and the only reason to have it was f
> > I need more information. What do you want reversed,
>
> revision 2.253
> date: 2001/09/23 03:39:01; author: momjian; state: Exp; lines: +3 -3
> Implement TODO item:
>
> * Change LIMIT val,val to offset,limit to match MySQL
>
> and the related description in HISTO
11 matches
Mail list logo
