X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BECCD52892 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:36:20 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 89536-02 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 19:36:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from stark.xeocode.com (stark.xeocode.com [216.58.44.227]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82ACE5281E for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:36:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=stark.xeocode.com) by stark.xeocode.com with smtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1DmzOi-0006qt-00; Mon, 27 Jun 2005 15:36:00 -0400 To: Markus Bertheau Cc: =?iso-8859-1?q?Mart=EDn_Marqu=E9s?= , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: SELECT * FROM foo OFFSET -1 LIMIT 1 References: <1119886449.29687.3.camel@dicaprio.akademie1.de> <200506271417.28851.martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar> <1119897697.7464.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1119897697.7464.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> From: Greg Stark Organization: The Emacs Conspiracy; member since 1992 Date: 27 Jun 2005 15:35:59 -0400 Message-ID: <87ekan1tk0.fsf@stark.xeocode.com> Lines: 11 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.004 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/321 X-Sequence-Number: 21922 Markus Bertheau writes: > Offset for negative numbers means 0, as it seems. I think there is a > sensible meaning for negative offset numbers and wondered, what > arguments led to negative offsets being processed as 0 offset. Frankly I'm surprised it's not a syntax error. -- greg