> > >
> > > I hope the QUERY_LIMIT too.
> >
> > I still have that cnfify() possible fix to review for KQSO. Are you
> > still thinking limit for 6.4 final, or a minor release after that?
>
> I posted the part that is the minimum applied to 6.4 to make
> adding LIMIT later non-initdb earlier. Anyway, here it's
> again.
Already applied. I assume it is the same as the one I applied.
>
> My LIMIT implementation that does it like the SET in the
> toplevel executor (but via parsetree values) is ready for
> production. I only held it back because it's feature, not
> bugfix.
>
> Do you want it in 6.4 final?
We are close to final, and can easily put it in 6.4.1, which I am sure
we will need, and if we split CVS trees, you'll have lots of minor
versions to pick from. :-)
Seems like it would be a nice minor release item, but the problem is
that minor releases aren't tested as much as major ones. How confident
are you in the code? What do others thing?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026