-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.4k
Oracle platform ignores OFFSET in case if LIMIT is not specified #2509
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you please remove the integer casting entirely and just rely on the method signature
integer|nullfor both$limitand$offset? Then just check everywhere againstnull. Also please remove the$has*variables as they are unnecessary.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@deeky666 The confusing part here is how is
$offset = nulldifferent from$offset = 0from the SQL semantics standpoint? Should the DBAL produce additional sub-query in the latter case? Right now it doesn't which makes more sense to me.UPD: comparing
$offsettonullwill break unit test:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@morozov yeah good point. But then leave it as before casting both parameters to
intand checking for0instead.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@deeky666 but unlike
OFFSET, forLIMIT0andnullhave different meanings — "0 records" and "all records" respectively. There's no complete consistency between existing adapters but all of them except SQL Anywhere only omit$limitwhen it'snull. Technically, it is possible to execute a query and retrieve 0 records from it, so the DBAL shouldn't be a limiting factor here. Also from the API consumer standpoint, if there's a bug in the calculation of$limiton the application end and it's calculated as0, I'd better expect 0 records to be returned instead of all of them.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@morozov sounds reasonable. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll accept it as is now.