Thanks for understanding Robert, that's more or less what I had in mind, I was mainly wondering if I were missing some deeper explanation for the absence of the possibility of requesting 0 rows.
Regardless of all of the above, it's really no big deal. I'll go ahead and use max_rows=1 for now, hopefully you guys don't decide to deprecate it. Shay On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 3:56 AM, Shay Rojansky <r...@roji.org> wrote: > > Just to be precise: what is strange to me is that the max_rows feature > > exists > > but has no 0 value. You and Marko are arguing that the whole feature > should > > be > > deprecated (i.e. always return all rows). > > I think the fact that it has no zero value is probably just a > historical accident; most likely, whoever designed it originally > (probably twenty years ago) didn't think about queries with > side-effects and therefore didn't consider that wanting 0 rows would > ever be sensible. Meanwhile, a sentinel value was needed to request > all rows, so they used 0. If they'd thought of it, they might have > picked -1 and we'd not be having this discussion. > > FWIW, I'm in complete agreement that it would be good if we had this > feature. I believe this is not the first report we've had of > PostgreSQL doing things in ways that mesh nicely with standardized > driver interfaces. Whether we think those interfaces are > well-designed or not, they are standardized. When people use $OTHERDB > and have a really great driver, and then they move to PostgreSQL and > get one with more warts, it does not encourage them to stick with > PostgreSQL. > > .NET is not some fringe user community that we can dismiss as > irrelevant. We need users of all languages to want to use PostgreSQL, > not just users of languages any one of us happens to personally like. > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
