Re: LIMIT NULL
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: LIMIT NULL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 603c8f070902040933h4fcecca6hef9b8f343b79b445@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: LIMIT NULL ("David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: LIMIT NULL
Re: LIMIT NULL |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:22 PM, David E. Wheeler <david@kineticode.com> wrote: >> In effect it does say that - perhaps not quite as explicitly as you might >> have wanted. It says: "The information in this part is presented in a >> narrative fashion in topical units. Readers looking for a complete >> description of a particular command should look into Part VI. " (the "PART >> VI" is a link). > > Which would make sense if you were reading it as a book, from front to back. > But as Svenn, Rick, and I have shown, that's not how people find PostgreSQL > documentation. There should be cross references to the proper pages in Part > VI on every relevant page in the narrative sections, IMHO. Just to play devil's advocate, I have used the PostgreSQL documentation for years and have long understood that the references pages are the place to go if you really need the nitty-gritty on how a particular command works. I agree that you might not realize this if you just casually Google your way in, but I can't imagine that problem is fixable. You'll just end up with a zillion cross-references that will, overall, reduce the clarity and readability of the documentation, which is overall very good. Still, the queries-limit.html page includes this statement: "OFFSET 0 is the same as omitting the OFFSET clause." I don't see that there would be anything bad or confusing about changing it to read this way: "OFFSET 0 is the same as omitting the OFFSET clause, and LIMIT NULL is the same as omitting the LIMIT clause." In fact, it seems nicely symmetric. ...Robert
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: