> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>I agree that LIMIT n OFFSET n is by far the most readable format, and is
> >>therefore the desirable format. But I am not sure about deprecating and
> >>eliminating the other syntax. Above all it should be avoided that it is
> >>now deprecated but is included in the next SQL standard and has to be
> >>added again.
> >
> > I am confused. While LIMIT and OFFSET may are potential SQL standard
> > reserved words, I don't see how LIMIT #,# would ever be a standard
> > specification. Do you see this somewhere I am missing. Again, LIMIT
> > #,# is the only syntax we are removing.
>
>
> If you are confident that LIMIT #,# would never be an official SQL
> standard who am I to second guess that ;) I don't see that possibility
> anywhere either, but I just wanted to make sure. The possibility that it
> might become an official standard is the only objection I had against
> deprecating and eventual elimination of that syntax.
>
> LIMIT # OFFSET # has my vote.
OK, we have received only one vote to keep LIMIT #,# working for one
more release, and several to remove it so I am committing a patch now to
remove LIMIT #,# and instead have them use LIMIT # OFFSET #:
test=> select * from pg_class LIMIT 1,1;
ERROR: LIMIT #,# syntax no longer supported. Use LIMIT # OFFSET #.
This message will not be removed in later releases because people
porting from MySQL will need to have it there even after our users have
ported their queries.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
