On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 9:50:11 AM UTC-7, João Serra wrote: > > Hello again Jeremy, > > Seems like not many people are interested in taking part of this > discussion unfortunately.. > > I understand there's other ways to achieve the same result as a `limit(0)` > query, I'd already solved my problem in particular with the `where(false)` > approach. Nevertheless I believe that my question still stands as it makes > sense for such query to be valid. > > I can show you where exactly I faced this problem and how it was solved ( > https://github.com/rmosolgo/graphql-ruby/pull/892), but IMO the root of > the issue should also be tackled. >
As I explained, there are tradeoffs in allowing LIMIT 0. The simplest way to fix this issue is to make LIMIT 0 available via an extension, keeping the existing behavior by default. Then people who want to support LIMIT 0 and don't care about the issues it causes can use the extension. What are your thoughts about that approach? Thanks, Jeremy -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
