On 2023-Dec-14, Tom Lane wrote:
> Zhang Mingli writes:
> > By reading the codes, I found that we process limit option as
> > LIMIT_OPTION_WITH_TIES when using WITH TIES
> > and all others are LIMIT_OPTION_COUNT by commit
> > 357889eb17bb9c9336c4f324ceb1651da616fe57.
> > And check actual limit node in limit_needed().
> > There is no need to maintain a useless default limit enum.
>
> I agree, that looks pretty useless. Our normal convention for
> representing not having any LIMIT clause would be to not create
> a SelectLimit node at all. I don't see why allowing a second
> representation is a good idea, especially when the code is not
> in fact doing that.
>
> git blame shows that this came in with 357889eb1. Alvaro,
> Surafel, do you want to argue for keeping things as-is?
I looked at the history of this. That enum member first appeared as a
result of your review at [1], and the accompanying code at that time did
use it a few times. The problem is that I later ([2]) proposed to rewrite
that code and remove most of the uses of that enum member, but failed to
remove it completely.
So, I think we're OK to remove it. I'm going to push Zhang's patch
soon unless there are objections.
[1] https://postgr.es/m/3277.1567722...@sss.pgh.pa.us
[2] https://postgr.es/m/20191125203442.GA30191@alvherre.pgsql
--
Álvaro HerreraBreisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Doing what he did amounts to sticking his fingers under the hood of the
implementation; if he gets his fingers burnt, it's his problem." (Tom Lane)
