On 11/21/2012 09:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> If we're going to do it can we please come up with something more
>> intuitive and much, much more documented than "OFFSET 0"? And if/when we
>> do this we'll need to have big red warnings all over then release notes,
>> since a lot of people I know will need to do some extensive remediation
>> before moving to such a release.
> The probability that we would actually *remove* that behavior of OFFSET
> 0 is not distinguishable from zero. I'm not terribly excited about
> having an alternate syntax to specify an optimization fence, but even
> if we do create such a thing, there's no need to break the historical
> usage.
>
I wasn't talking about removing it. My point was that if the
optimization fence around CTEs is removed a lot of people will need to
rework apps where they have used them for that purpose. And I continue
to think that spelling it "OFFSET 0" is horribly obscure.
cheers
andrew
